"I awoke one night in Quito, Ecuador, this year and came up with a way to save a chip or two from the Apple II, and a trivial way to have the 2 grays of the Apple II be different (light gray and dark gray) but it’s 38 years too late."
This is how you know you love your work. When you're still thinking of new things you can optimize, even four decades later.
The IIgs, while impressive, was actually a brand new 16-bit computer with a //c built in.
Steve Jobs kept trying to invent the next big thing. Apple II, Macintosh, NeXT, iPod, iPhone. For some reason, engineers often don't think like this
He gave the world a superb, decisive work of engineering, then left the stage to other performers while he went to teach future generations.
Well, he did invent the universal remote...
Which is not to say he definitely would have - but don't count the missing 2nd act against him.
What did Steve Jobs invent actually?
He was just the marketing guy who got all the innovation credit. Still does actually... There's no movie about Woz (in fact they made him look like a bumbling idiot in the first run, and now a comedian will play him in the second run). There's no movie about the iPhone team. Nobody knows who did the real inventing behind anything Apple.
Moments like this from Woz give an insight to how some of the greatest engineering geniuses tick.
~~
Great moment showing Woz's genius and humanity:
> In 1973, Jobs was working for arcade game company Atari, Inc. in Los Gatos, California.[10] He was assigned to create a circuit board for the arcade video game Breakout. According to Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari offered $100 for each chip that was eliminated in the machine. Jobs had little knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50 by using RAM for the brick representation. Too complex to be fully comprehended at the time, the fact that this prototype also had no scoring or coin mechanisms meant Woz's prototype could not be used. Jobs was paid the full bonus regardless. Jobs told Wozniak that Atari gave them only $700 and that Wozniak's share was thus $350.[11] Wozniak did not learn about the actual bonus until ten years later, but said that if Jobs had told him about it and had said he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
($5,000 USD in 1973 --> $26,805.29 USD in 2014 -- Jobs gave Woz $350 USD in 1973 --> $1,876.37 USD in 2014, about 7%)
There's that general problematic trend in modern societies:
http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i30/Media-Portrayal-Scientist...
"The public figures of society today are actors, singers, sports figures, top models, and so-called famous people. This fashion is strongly imposed by the media. In film, scientists are often presented as nerds or as evil."
> There's no movie about the iPhone team.
At least here a lot of engineers tell what they did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-sa...
However it's still clear that a lot of what was done was directly decided by Jobs. So he is rightfully credited as the designer of the iPhone, in the sense of "the final result of all the smaller inventions."
I'm sorry you seem to be a really confused. Steve Jobs was always trying to build the ideal team. He knew it took great teams to build great products. He built the iPhone team. He built the Macintosh team. He built the NeXT team.
By the way, what's the point in telling the story about Jobs ripping off Wozniak? It's irrelevant to the point we'recdiscussing. This brings up another great Jobs quality. He had extreme focus. He wouldn't run into the weeds. Seriously, you converted the money to 2014 dollars? The point of the discussion isn't to assassinate anyone's character, or to determine which Steve you like the best. That's a nerd fight for another day.
Anyway, hopefully more engineers and founders will go on to have second and third acts like Jobs and Musk. I think engineers seem to have a harder time because they don't understand the importance of building teams.
With that said, I do feel you are giving awfully too much credit to someone who never actually designed anything in his life. Sure, he was at the helm of each of the companies that ended up producing good results, but do you actually believe Jobs himself was directly involved in the day-to-day decisions and engineering of each of the products? Absolutely not, he's busy running the company. The true unsung hero's at Apple and NeXT were the engineers, and their direct management team. Jobs may have been good at assembling a good management team and motivating them, but the management team are the ones who are good at assembling the right engineering team with the right motivation. I mean, Jony Ive should get more credit than Jobs for the iPhone, because he was and is the end-all-be-all of design for the product. Who recruited him? Not Jobs, it was Brunner.
Was Jobs great? Sure. Was he any more great than any of the modern great tech CEO's (Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, Larry Ellison, Jonathan Schwartz, etc...)? Nope.
(btw, it's still 7% even in 1973 dollars. Jobs took home 93% without doing a thing while Woz got no credit, and no profit)
Jobs built both Apple and Pixar, two companies with enormous influence in their respective fields. Those companies have organizational structures that are radically different, each one optimized towards their business and core ethos.
Ellison built Oracle, an interchangeable enterprise software company, and a World Cup team. Impressive but not nearly the same league.
> Ellison built Oracle, an interchangeable enterprise software company
You may view Oracle as simply interchangeable and expendable, but in their respective space they dominate. They don't sell "sexy" products to consumers no, but as we've seen with all consumer-faced companies -- their time comes and goes -- while enterprise is constant.
Do you even know Ellison's story? It's far more inspirational than most other tech titan CEO's. It's the rags to riches story, and now he owns an island, world class sailing team, one of the world's largest yachts, and one of the largest enterprise-space companies in the world. Really the cliche "American Dream"
http://alvyray.com/Pixar/PixarMyth1.htm
"A new spinout corporation from Lucasfilm, called Pixar, was capitalized with $10 million from Steve Jobs."
"Eventually, by about 1991, he owned 100% of Pixar at a total investment of $50 million."
And Jobs was the CEO of Pixar. By the way, my facts are from one of the co-founders of Pixar:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvy_Ray_Smith
I suppose we don't give Bill Gates credit for his foundation either? Everyone else is doing all the work. It's just his vision and money.
Jobs did not found Pixar -- he bought the company (under a different name then changed to Pixar) from Lucas Film. He was not the CEO, he was chairman of the board and famously had very little to do with their day-to-day activities -- he really just let them do their thing. He almost sold Pixar multiple times because they were not the home-run company he had hope for, until Toy Story. He slowly bought shares back from employees and the actual founders until he owned almost 100% of the company (making his total investment $50 million). Then he sold the company off to Disney.
Jobs was the check book for Pixar -- he didn't make them great, they were great all along. They just had no product and no capital for a long period of time. He gave them the chance to succeed, and for that he should get credit. But he wasn't some sort of creative mastermind genius that turned Pixar into what is became.
In any regard, we've gone into the weeds. As I said multiple posts ago, I'm never going to change your mind. Apple sold products you like as a consumer, and therefore you like the person at the helm. Personally, I think there are far better businessman examples all over, some I've mentioned already, others are like the guy in Napa Valley, CA making $2 billion a year selling wine corks.
By the way, I based my claim that Jobs was CEO of Pixar based on the co-founder of Pixar, and other facts I found on the Internet. Can you provide some facts to show that I'm wrong?
1) Never will have a small form factor tablet
2) Never will have a large form factor phone
3) Never will produce "cheap" plastic-component phones
4) Never will embrace NFC
Towards the end, as we can very clearly now see, Jobs stood in the way of his team and innovation. Every single one of the things he said Apple will never do, they have done. And as we can see, they have been very successful with each line item. In fact, they've sold more iPhones now than ever during his tenure.
Jobs could put together a management team -- but he couldn't produce a product. During his first tenure at Apple, the company produced some of the worst garbage the world has ever seen from a modern company. It wasn't until his second chance that his management team finally got the right engineers hired. Like I said earlier, Jony Ive wasn't even a Jobs hire - Ive almost left apple when Jobs returned!
His management team were the ones that put together the engineering team and production teams -- and ultimately turned Apple into what they are today. People like Woz deserve the credit Jobs takes and gets.
~
regarding your question about pixar, the information is readily available on their wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar
He said Apple would never make a phone. They did. He said "never" many times, and many times Apple went and did exactly that.
Learn your history.
Yes, pre-NeXT Steve Jobs wasn't as good at directing products, but he did create the Macintosh. Post-NeXT (and Pixar) he had a much better sense of how to build teams and create products, those years were not squandered.
Dismissing someone because of failures is ridiculous. Bill Gates shipped Windows 1.0, an abortion of a product, and Windows 2.0, which was nearly as useless. It was only with Windows 3.0 they finally got traction and that went on to become the dominant operating system in the world.
Oh, but it failed twice, so whatever.
In addition, read the paragraph containing this line:
"He also began then for the first time to take an active direct leadership role in the company, making himself its CEO. "
The technology he bought was for rendering hardware. The company, under his specific direction, went from producing hardware and software to feature films.
Your hand-waving dismissal of the role Jobs played in Pixar is staggeringly ignorant.
Many accounts from the key people on the Pixar team credit Jobs with his important decisions and his hand in creating the culture that Pixar has today. I'm presuming you haven't ready any of those. "It's funny how you pick and choose", or in your case flat-out ignore.
How does making money have anything to do with being a better businessman? How does $2B in sales compare to a titanic company like Apple that's pulling down $40B per quarter? Not very well.
Larry and Bill definitely ran great companies. And Bill does have a second act. He's trying to change the world on a larger scale. Good for him, and the world.
Anyway, you're still missing the point. Caught in some endless loop. Your version of Mighty Mouse vs Superman.
If he describes the two grays thing in more detail, someone could implement it in MESS at least.
Woz: are you reading this?