Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2012 22:01 UTC
Microsoft Steve Ballmer's annual letter to shareholders makes it very clear Microsoft is at a point of no return - and in the middle of a transition into a hardware company. "This is a significant shift, both in what we do and how we see ourselves - as a devices and services company. It impacts how we run the company, how we develop new experiences, and how we take products to market for both consumers and businesses." Line. Sand.
Thread beginning with comment 538101
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: In plain English
by kwan_e on Wed 10th Oct 2012 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: In plain English"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Whatever your personal view points are, is some what irrelevant.


Nothing to do with my personal views. Some people consider Apple to be a hardware company, whatever Jobs says. Their reasons seemed to be a good interpretation and so I adopted part of their viewpoints that Apple was really a hardware company.

What about the contribution of the other Steve? His contribution was hardware, and his side of things was more hardware than software. Did his achievements mean nothing?

It seems this Cult of Jobs is even rewriting Apple's history to write out all other contributors to its proud legacy.

* Go on, you assholes who modded me down - mod this one down as well so you can keep your fantasy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: In plain English
by Laurence on Wed 10th Oct 2012 15:59 in reply to "RE[9]: In plain English"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


What about the contribution of the other Steve? His contribution was hardware, and his side of things was more hardware than software. Did his achievements mean nothing?

Considering how long ago he left, his testimony would be older than Jobs (or, at the very least, less relevant)


It seems this Cult of Jobs is even rewriting Apple's history to write out all other contributors to its proud legacy.

Normally I'd agree with you, but given this discussion is about what Apples primary focus is/was, then I'd say the (former) CEO's view point is pretty critical to the discussion.

This isn't crediting Jobs for anything other than actually turning up to meeting and running the business he's supposed to be the chief executive off (or at the very least, being within ear shot of those that were running it lol)

Reply Parent Score: 3