Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Oct 2013 14:26 UTC
Apple

This fascinating documentary was filmed from December 1985 to March 1986 at NeXT's team retreat in Pebble Beach. It offers a rare glimpse of Steve's vision, aspirations and managerial approach.

Remarkable documentary - several planning meetings and discussions during NeXT's early days, with Steve Jobs and his team, many of which also worked on the Macintosh. You have to see this.

Via Typographica.

Order by: Score:
v Sorry
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 15:24 UTC
RE: Sorry
by majipoor on Mon 28th Oct 2013 16:23 UTC in reply to "Sorry"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Yet, people not interested in Steve Jobs or overpriced and closed Apple products are the most active usually on Apple related topics. Go figure.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[2]: Sorry
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry"
RE[3]: Sorry
by Kochise on Mon 28th Oct 2013 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You sounds like "Steve Jobs invented nothing" or "Bill Gates' fame is exaggerated"... Whenever you like them or not, they definitively set the computer history, suffice to look at their brand legacy and how much either Apple or Microsoft now owns as bank cash. They not only sold crackers to get there.

Beside, would you kindly, please, read this, from start to finish, and stop being a pussy, thanks :

http://www.folklore.org/ (all 119 inputs !)

So of course, it's not just Steve Jobs, it's a whole team. But who select the team members ? Who set them goals ? Who refine the aiming ? Who select the best options from the team members to be featured in the final product ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 8

v RE[4]: Sorry
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry"
RE[5]: Sorry
by burnttoys on Mon 28th Oct 2013 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

TBH I have no idea why I'm replying to you but here goes.

What was it that Steve Wozniak _invented_? You could argue that it was the Apple I & II.

Think about that - all of those components that made up those machines existed in other places. The disk interface, the VDD, keyboard interface etc etc etc. Now, don't get me wrong, it seem Woz did a pretty killer job on shrinking, refining, re-imagining and integrating those and new components. Maybe some new stuff popped up along the way.

Now - let's look at the other Steve - he didn't write the code, he didn't build a whack new disk interface but it is (arguable, natch) that few people at the time had it in their minds that graphics would be the big thing and that every person would want to get their hands on a computer. Jobs _did_ have that "vision" in mind (vision is a shallow term loved by journalist who wish to over-emphasis "idea").

He found those ideas and the code, patents, concepts "out there" in the same way that Woz, Burrell and the other legends of early Apple found RAM chips and the 6502.

Does that make any sense?!

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Sorry
by Kochise on Tue 29th Oct 2013 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sorry"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

It makes even more sense in the fact that clever Woz engineered FDC or Burrel RAM bus are nothing out of Jobs' concept of the Macintosh. Or the colorful iMac that has set of fire the computer industry at the early 2000, or the iPhone when other smartphones existed before.

You can buy raw silicon per ton if you want, but Apple products are unmatched in making that dark and cold silicon do smarter things that the average opponent. And that's Steve that pushed the "vision" ever further.

Now I admit the "revolutionary, fantastic, never seen before, etc" babbles annoyed me as much as many people. This is just some fancy high-tech stuff, nothing that will make the air cleaner, water fresher, earth spinning faster, people less dumb.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Sorry
by kckc on Tue 29th Oct 2013 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sorry"
RE[7]: Sorry
by burnttoys on Tue 29th Oct 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sorry"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

I admit that I only scanned the videos as I am very well acquainted with the work of Mr Engelbart & Mr Kay.

Apple licensed the GUI concepts from Xerox (PARC) after seeing them prior to initial work on the Mac. Those concepts had been bouncing around inside Xerox for a few years and if they had stayed there would, probably, still be there. All Xerox tried to do was sell an insanely expensive office "solution". It appeared they had no deep idea or vision about what this technology means. To summarise that, this technology (the GUI) is not about running offices or making the world paperless - it is about the communications medium between man and machine. Xerox, at least at management level, just saw "paperless office" not "conversing with a computer".

What, famously, happened next (as I recall from Byte BITD) was a 3 way Mexican stand-off between Xerox, Apple and Microsoft.

As for Alan Kay, well, he worked for Apple! I know this video predates his investiture there but that is of little purpose and only highlights that Steve Jobs understood how Alan Kay's vision could purpose his own.

As for Doug - well, flat out, the guys a genius and lightyears ahead of the curve. Just about everybody that came after him owes him a debt both of gratitude and, probably, money!

The suggestion appears to be that to avoid the label of "thief" Steve Jobs must have had to have written every last line of code, had every insight into man-machine interfaces, purified every silicon wafer and etched every PCB trace.That argument would be impotent.

Steve Jobs, like Bill Gates, possessed an idea and went out to find every last scrap of resource that could be used to create that idea. A PC on every desktop. A bicycle for the mind.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sorry
by w00master on Mon 28th Oct 2013 16:39 UTC in reply to "Sorry"
w00master Member since:
2013-10-28
v RE[2]: Sorry
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry"
RE[3]: Sorry
by w00master on Thu 31st Oct 2013 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
w00master Member since:
2013-10-28

Did Steve Jobs and Apple kill your family or something?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sorry
by w00master on Thu 31st Oct 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
w00master Member since:
2013-10-28

Btw... considering my snopes post... are you going to retract that portion?

Oh, that's right... you won't cause you're an idiot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sorry
by Alfman on Thu 31st Oct 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

w00master,

The popular misquote was actually from a humorous skit on TV (apparently censored due to copyright claims), but after reading snopes's very own quote that seems to actually confirm that Al Gore was trying to take some credit for creating the internet, albeit in less dramatic wording. Snopes needs better classifications, since "false" isn't completely accurate; "Misquoted with elements of truth" would be fair.

Edited 2013-10-31 18:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sorry
by Soulbender on Mon 28th Oct 2013 17:29 UTC in reply to "Sorry"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'm not an Apple fan and I don't own a single Apple product so I'm going to put this to you as nicely as possible:

You're an idiot.

Reply Score: 16

v RE[2]: Sorry
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry"
RE[3]: Sorry
by FreeGamer on Mon 28th Oct 2013 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

As somebody espousing a political hack-job-come-talking-point as fact, perhaps you are not best positioned to assess another's credibility.

However, if you were to tell me Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11, that would be more fitting for your persona.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Sorry
by tails92 on Mon 28th Oct 2013 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
tails92 Member since:
2007-10-07

Actually, you have a point. OSNews is much less interesting than it used to be; I have been reading this site since 2005 and around late 2009 IMHO it started going downhill. There are rarely, if ever, posts about operating systems anymore - it's all about the last tech trend and mobile and mobile and mobile.. ok, it's the latest hot thing, but this is "OS"news not "smartphone" news.

If I want to read a "smartphone" news site, there are many ones that are much better and up-to-date than OSNews; OSNews used to be the place where you would hear people talk about BeOS, QNX, and niche and obscure operating systems. That was OSNews's strength and what set it apart from the rest...

And before someone starts yelling out, "Alternative OSes" died, they plainly have not, just, perhaps, became even more of a niche than they were - and that is obvious, in a world where most computer and device users are just consumers.

What's the place for OSNews, the way it currently is, nowadays? I wonder... it might generate more advertising revenue - ok, there's no free lunch - but it is becoming more and more irrelevant.. it happened often that other sites would link to original content on OSNews back in the day - now, with very little original content - no links to be found!

Food for thought.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sorry
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 28th Oct 2013 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and so on, are not operating systems?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sorry
by tails92 on Mon 28th Oct 2013 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry"
tails92 Member since:
2007-10-07

They are, obviously, and it is not only perfectly fine to cover them, but "required" for a site which calls itself OSNews.
The issue at hand in my post was somewhat different, though - the fact that there are much better resources if I want a mobile-news site (just off the top of my head, Ars Technica, Gizmodo, etc.), and that this site should be about what it is good at - namely, "operating system" news. Not just mobile device operating systems, but *all* operating systems, from the kitchen sink to military.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sorry
by ddc_ on Mon 28th Oct 2013 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Actually, most items on mobile stuff here are not related to the operating systems themselves - they talk about distribution systems, marketing and market shares, UIs, etc.

At the same time there's quite a lot happening in OSs - Windows 8.1 is out with quite some changes, BSDs have a torrent of really exciting news since this spring, some things are probably happening in Linux (I don't really follow it, but elsewhere I hear of kdbus, redesign of cgroups, Wayland support in major DEs, Canonical's Mir following the fate of Soviet Mir, other tech products of Red Hat vs. Canonical power struggle 10 years ago I wouldn't believe ever possible).

There is a trend of blending technology and things happening around technology (tech entrepreneurship, artistic design, etc.) that is the easiest to observe in last 5 years or so, and OSNews succumbs to it (admittedly slower then many others). It is really sad.

Edited 2013-10-28 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Sorry
by burnttoys on Mon 28th Oct 2013 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

And before someone starts yelling out, "Alternative OSes" died, they plainly have not, just, perhaps, became even more of a niche than they were


Software without users is worthless. Quote me.

Any worth, if that can be ascribed it, is titilation, mere self pleasure. However, I cannot (will not!) object to such assignment!

Food for thought.


Most things are but most leave me hungry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sorry
by Morgan on Mon 28th Oct 2013 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If I want to read a "smartphone" news site, there are many ones that are much better and up-to-date than OSNews; OSNews used to be the place where you would hear people talk about BeOS, QNX, and niche and obscure operating systems. That was OSNews's strength and what set it apart from the rest...


As someone with a thriving interest in BeOS (and by extension Haiku), QNX, FreeDOS, SyllableOS, the BSDs, Maemo, MeeGo, and several other dead, dying, minor and niche OSes, I will say that this site gives as much coverage as possible without inventing fake news stories. If that's what you're after, please go join a parody or tabloid site. I'd say this one does an amazing job of keeping up with the world of computer and device operating systems.

I use Google+ to keep up with a lot of minor and niche projects, and more often than not I read about new developments on this site a day or so before it hits that constantly moving social network.

In short, if you don't like it, leave. No one is stopping you. But if you're ranting for the sake of ranting (which I firmly believe) then I know you will stick around just so you can make up more reasons to complain.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Sorry
by Alfman on Tue 29th Oct 2013 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Who among us aren't ranting for the sake of ranting? As it turns out, this very post is a rant ;)

Now it's likely that many of us do enjoy diving into stimulating topics and truly collaborate with others (as opposed to ranting). I enjoy reading a great technical article and discussing it with others. However would I really be in the minority if I found these moments are dwindling here on osnews? I want this to be a great place to come to collaborate about OS technology (and less about the mobile trends). For better or worse, today's format seems to have attracted a readership that I consider somewhat toxic when it to intelligent discussions; it only takes one over-opinionated poster to reduce the whole discussion to the online equivalent to 'trench warfare'.

In the past, I suggested osnews should get some technical writers to create original content, which we desperately need (IMHO). I suspect Thom might even have agreed with the idea but then I know it costs money. Ironically the good technical articles could even result in *fewer* ad views than the simpler divisive trending articles we have now. Consider the number of comments on technical articles might not even reach the teens, meanwhile the latest [apple/google/ms]-fad is likely to reach 100 for no reason other than people debating why one company is better than others.


Perhaps osnews could run a project of it's own to encourage us to use our collective minds constructively. I think we could find many viable projects that could work, I'd be willing to work with others here on _something_. Our project would get prime coverage here on osnews, which could be exceptionally useful for raising awareness, which is probably the #1 setback for indy projects.

I dunno, what's everyone else think? It would be an interesting opportunity for everyone here to participate in the development of a new project starting from it's inception. Too optimistic?

If you'd be interested Thom, you could start an article asking for project ideas (I have a few), and ideally lay down some ground rules.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Sorry
by Kochise on Tue 29th Oct 2013 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sorry"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Peine perdue, les réticents iront se réfugier sur slashdot, reddit, voire... 4chan :/

Kochise

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Sorry
by Alfman on Tue 29th Oct 2013 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sorry"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Je ne sais pas si on aurait assez d'intérêt en général, mais ça me fais rien s'ils qui ne sont pas intéressé en ces chose vont ailleurs pour se chicaner. Ça diminuerait de la pollution ici.

Edited 2013-10-29 08:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sorry
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 29th Oct 2013 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sorry"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you'd be interested Thom, you could start an article asking for project ideas (I have a few), and ideally lay down some ground rules.


We have tried this a million times over the years. It never works. People are more comfortable standing on the sidelines than actively participating. That's not a bad thing - we're all just people - but it is a fact of life.

The few people who did try to participate over the years ALL lost their muster within one or two weeks. No exceptions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Sorry
by Alfman on Tue 29th Oct 2013 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sorry"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

"We have tried this a million times over the years. It never works. People are more comfortable standing on the sidelines than actively participating. That's not a bad thing - we're all just people - but it is a fact of life."


The only kind of user participation I'm aware of since joining was having users submit their own news, which is not the same thing. I am curious to see what else you tried, when have you guys tried to do more with osnews? The format I'd envision would require some site changes since the article/comments format is inherently more suited towards discussion than participation. I feel a problem with articles today is that they're used once and then thrown away, who really wants to put work into that? Wikipedia is a different format that encourages user participation, not that we'd necessarily need a wiki, but it's one of the best examples I can think of.

I mean, you might very well be right about human nature, but then it takes something extraordinary to inspire us. Do something wacky, experimental, and fun. A sister project site with more persistence would encourage long term participation. More than just a news source, it could actually be a collaborative platform for building & studying technology in a fun way. There are some tough questions (such as how can this be funded?), but does no one else even share the vision?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Sorry
by Morgan on Mon 28th Oct 2013 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[3]: Sorry
by Soulbender on Tue 29th Oct 2013 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This site panders to the Apple fan-boys to the point of losing all credibility.


You're new here, aren't you.

Reply Score: 3

Reality Distortion
by jazman777 on Mon 28th Oct 2013 17:17 UTC
jazman777
Member since:
2013-02-27

Right before the 9:50 mark, the woman complains about their "Reality Distortion".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Reality Distortion
by ferrels on Mon 28th Oct 2013 17:21 UTC in reply to "Reality Distortion"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

I think the words "reality distortion" are the politically correct term for "liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Edited 2013-10-28 17:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

gardening in a white button shirt
by ezraz on Mon 28th Oct 2013 19:06 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

hahahahaha.
there's a mr. show skit that is similar to this.
pretty awesome, 80's computer nerds were very different than current dubstepping idiots.

Reply Score: 0

Comment titles are useless
by pandronic on Tue 29th Oct 2013 10:03 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

As much as I don't like Steve Jobs as a character and I despise the legacy he left behind, I have to give him props for being one hell of a business man. That being said I don't think he should be mentioned or celebrated for more than that. He wasn't a visionary, he didn't invent anything, his company didn't invent much either, he just saw an opportunity and exploited it all the way to the bank. In doing so, he did irreparable damage to the computing world.

When Jobs took over Apple, computing and devices in general were not very user friendly and generally suited for professionals and power users. This was undoubtedly bad for the computer illiterate. A solution was needed. Jobs saw that and rolled out his solution: make every computing device an appliance with strict limits, so the common user, no matter how inept he/she is can't break it. Couple that with the fact that Apple marketed its devices as status raising, must have, cool and youthful and you have a hit. Don't get me wrong, that's no small feat and he should be appreciated for his business and marketing prowess.

So to sum it up - he saw there was a need for appliance-type devices, he took existing technology and slapped it together, locked it down heavily so the **silly** user couldn't damage it or push it to its limits performance-wise, made it work well for some VERY limited, but common usage scenarios, made it look all cool and hip, lied about being innovative and revolutionary so users would feel good about it and cashed in on that. That's all there is to it.

On the other hand, because of his influence, because he showed the world that there are money to be made by exploiting the technologically challenged, even to this day everyone is dumbing down their platforms, everyone is locking them like there's no tomorrow and everyone is imposing horrible restrictions on software developers. Wouldn't we live in a better world if instead of catering to the uneducated, we would educate them?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment titles are useless
by darknexus on Tue 29th Oct 2013 11:33 UTC in reply to "Comment titles are useless"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

On the other hand, because of his influence, because he showed the world that there are money to be made by exploiting the technologically challenged, even to this day everyone is dumbing down their platforms, everyone is locking them like there's no tomorrow and everyone is imposing horrible restrictions on software developers. Wouldn't we live in a better world if instead of catering to the uneducated, we would educate them?

What makes you think any of these people care about this mythical "better world?" People don't want to be educated if there's any way at all to avoid it, and businesses are naturally going to go for that larger market segment. Much as I hate car analogies I'll use one here: most people wouldn't learn how to drive if their car could do it all for them. Sad, but true.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment titles are useless
by pandronic on Tue 29th Oct 2013 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment titles are useless"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, they don't want to learn. I they did, they would have done it already. In an ideal situation, society would force these people to learn in order to better itself.

It would have been nice if things happened some other way on the one hand (I think it would've been enough if Jobs didn't rise to power in the 2000s) and on the other I'm not alright with the fact that Jobs is venerated for being just a business man that did his job.

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, they don't want to learn. I they did, they would have done it already. In an ideal situation, society would force these people to learn in order to better itself.

You can't force that. Either you wish to better yourself or you do not, and who's to say what is "betering" yourself anyway? Got a relative of mine that can instantly diagnose anything wrong with any automobile made in the past 40 years, no shit. They can figure it out and fix it, usually in a span of hours. They did not go to school for this, and were not "forced" to "better" themselves and yet they did because it was something they both liked and knew there was a market for. On the other hand, sit this person down in front of a computer and about all they know how to do is click on one of their bookmarked links.
You can't force people to become "better" by your definition. That's been tried before. We do still remember the result, yes?
Either a person wishes to learn about a given subject or they do not. Those who do will learn regardless of what others do, and those who do not will refuse to be forced and will reject being taught. You can try to get people interested in learning a given subject and that can and often does work, but you can never force a desire for it upon them.

It would have been nice if things happened some other way on the one hand (I think it would've been enough if Jobs didn't rise to power in the 2000s)

Now who's revising history? Anyone, remember the early 2000s windows users? Did they show any signs whatsoever of wishing to understand security practices or even the least desire to know why their computer was popping up ads all over the place? Let's go back further, how about the mid 90s before Jobs "rose to power." Anyone?

and on the other I'm not alright with the fact that Jobs is venerated for being just a business man that did his job.

Now here we agree. A businessman, no more no less, is exactly what he was. There's nothing wrong with that and he was damn good at his job, but let's not kid ourselves.

Reply Score: 4

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Using a computer and fixing a car is not the same thing. In today's world, using a computer is as important as reading and writing. Especially in urban environments you can't function properly if you don't have some knowledge about computing. It's a basic skill, yet people refuse to learn it properly. And as time goes by, we will become more and more dependent of computers and things will only get worse. For now, smart people suffer because of those who can't be bothered to educate themselves for their own good. It's real life Idiocracy and it's Steve Jobs who started it all.

We force people to go to school and learn reading and writing and basic math. Why can't we make them learn basic computing? It's not like I'm asking they learn origami.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment titles are useless
by mkone on Wed 30th Oct 2013 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment titles are useless"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Using a computer and fixing a car is not the same thing. In today's world, using a computer is as important as reading and writing.


Using a computer is just about as unspecific as "doing stuff". For many people, it is enough to be able to write a documents using a word processor, create lists in a spreadsheet and write and receive emails. They don't need to know any more than that.

A good analogy is how I don't need to know about carburettors (or direct injection) or any of those other topics to driver a car. Pretty much every car either has a manual gearbox with 4, 5 or 6 forward gears, or an autobox. All I need to know is how to drive it and switch on the lights etc.

Reply Score: 4

Industry
by portagekix on Tue 29th Oct 2013 14:35 UTC
portagekix
Member since:
2009-02-04

I think one thing that gets lost is all of this discussion that usually devolves into some stupid Android vs. iOS vs. Windows vs. Samsumg vs. whomever or arguments about this or that is the legacy of people. As a progressive individual, I find Andrew Carnagie to be plain awful despite his last moments when he decided to build libraries. He didn't invent the Bessemer Process, but he did revolutionize the production and distribution of the steal. I also have to acknowledge that my life today would be unnoticeable if not for that guy. He was one of the greatest industrialists ever and changed lives in positive and negative ways.

That being said, I tend to view Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the Google guys the same way. They were/are probably not the kind of people I would like to spend any fraction of time with, but as industrialists (if one considers tech an industry, which I think most do), they are unmatched. They are historical figures that will be in U.S./World History books in classrooms around the world in 100 years, 200 years, so on and so forth. All of these guys are probably self absorbed turds, but damn, they revolutionized our world, for everyone.

Reading the comments on this site is tough. Most carry themselves like children who cannot see anything except for what's right in front of their faces. Look at these people in a wider context. Did Steve invent the computer? No. Did he invent the GUI? No. Did he help create an environment where everyone who doesn't feel like learning how to code DOS can use a computer? Yes. Did he create the locked top-to-bottom system that is Apple? Yes. Did Google offer an alternative? Yes. Hurray for capitalism! A little context and perspective might help the usual folks who comment on OSNews. It's not always a Us vs. Them sort of thing. Sometimes, it's just a thing. That's what's being presented here, a moment in history.

Lastly, Thom, don't always agree with you, but love the site because you have a tendency to bring up some good points worth discussion.

Sorry about the rant.

Reply Score: 2

Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

In the first part of the documentary Jobs argues that the product should be cheap and should be for the educational market.

In the 2nd part, when the team comes together for the 2nd time and Jobs starts off with 'The honeymoon is over', it seems to me that Jobs actually is unable to answer the question by the lady from his team about what the computer should do, what feature set it should have. They only thing he knows for sure is that it needs to be finished in summer 1987, else the time window is gone.

Actually he says that is the teams responsibility to come up with some ideas.

This does not strike me as a visionary man, who knows what he wants, rather more like a person with money that has a go at building a new computer, hoping for success, based on the fact that he is working with some great minds...

Reply Score: 4

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Never had your ups and downs ? Perhaps on the first meeting he was ecstatic, but then he met bankers and investors that were skeptical and put him in doubt. Who knows, you cannot judge all out of some frames of a 30 years old record.

Please keep in mind that while he had a coarse idea of what things should do, the said thing was a never-made-and-seen-before product, so it might be hard, even for Steve Jobs, to get a precise vision when you are only at an early prototype version and you are still refining the hardware and the software on a daily basis.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3