Didn't write code

>didn't write code
>didn't do engineering
>not a designer
>didn't really invent anything at all
Why is this person considered a genius? There are plenty of people on this very board who are much, much, much more skilled with technology than him.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/gveTy4EmNyk
youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ
opensource.apple.com/
wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html
money.cnn.com/1997/08/08/technology/apple_microsoft_pkg/
thisdayintechhistory.com/08/06/apple-and-microsoft-call-truce/
newyorker.com/magazine/1997/09/08/the-perceptionist
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

i don't particularly care for him either, but he was charismatic enough to market and spoonfeed everything to everyone

because hes fucking genius at business and marketing and brought his company back from the bring many times, even making them get on their knees and beg for him to work there to unfuck their situation

good leadership

Two of his co-founders did the hard work, so that a snowball were able to start rolling. It was a time at which computers would be a successful entrepeneurship no matter who did it. Their snowball got stuck some places, but it had grown so much that it only needed a new push. He happened to be the person to push it,because he deceived them to think the was the guy who could do it. Now he is considered a genius for doing something that would have been done ANYWAY. I just always found that fascinating.

He's a genius at selling and getting people to do shit, something that freetards would never do properly.

you don't get the point. he was a genius at marketing and business, not tech. he made people think of the apple ecosystem like some sort of culture and that's why it's such a successful company. he made customer loyalty such a big deal that the console fanboy shit with sony and microsoft that we see today doesn't even come close to that.

Funny thing is that he didn't even do the marketing by himself. What's up with that?

>companies have multiple people working in them
wow

That's true. Better people than him told him what was good marketing, and then he called the decisions.

As other anons have said.
Marketing genius, but tech illiterate.
/thread

Yes, but my point is that deeming someone a genius for basically doing the same thing as ANY other CEO, makes every CEO a genius. By doing that you ruin the word "genius", don't you?

He's deemed a genius because his company happened to be the most successful, and people love to praise success. He is not a genius, but people see his success as genius, so they see him as one. It's just how it is. He isn't one, yet he is because we say he is.

>Why is this person considered a genius?
He's only considered that by the basic bitches who think Al Gore invented the Internet

>who think Al Gore invented the Internet
Lmfao people actually believe that?

literally the best company mascot that ever lived

I agree with you. The word "genius" is thrown around so carelessly these days. It does seem that the guy didn't do all that much groundbreaking stuff. He was just there at the right time implementing the same marketing strategies everyone else was implementing. He was lucky. When I say this, I don't mean to undermine him or anything. It's just frustrating how our culture loves to prop up these idols for little to no reason.

Movie directors don't operate the camera, don't act, don't set up the lights, they don't hold the boom and they don't take care of the catering. Conductors don't need to play any of the instruments in a performance, they just silently wave their hands.

There was a popular meme among conservatives in the early 2000s that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. The alternate reality they live in is hardly a new thing.

This.


OP is a faggot and doesn’t understand what a creative director is. Jobs was literally the brainchild if everything this board hates about Apple.

> simplicity
> interconnectedness
> sleek uniform design
> aesthetics over specifications
> innovation

I mean fucks sake how long ago did apple come out with the Apple TV? Now we’ve got millions and millions of people win Roku, Amazon sticks, Chromecasts, etc in their homes to watch media right in their living room over the internet.

Google’s synching and interconnectivity? Where y’all think the WANT for that even came from? It damn sure wasn’t some enterprise windows vista user who only used excel, word, adobeshit, and CAD.

No joke. This is the innovation people talk about when they mention jobs and Apple. After he passed, that spark was lost.

You're making the mistake of believing that he did something other CEO's couldn't have done just as good or better. He was just lucky that he was in charge of something big that would basically sell itself.

It's pretty common for people to overestimate the importance of their own areas of expertise while simultaneously underestimating the impact of jobs they don't understand / can't perform themselves. That's exactly what is happening with OP.

Basically, Jobs was a genius for hiring frog?

I’m not discrediting other CEOs. I’m simply saying it makes no sense to discredit jobs when everyone in this fucking board who hates Apple and their ilk only do so BECAUSE of jobs’ decisions, and the direction he took the company in general.

>muh god such intellect

Fleeced the proverbial pants off hipsters, to the point they started calling him a genius for repackaging years old HW are marketing as revoluationary^TM products.

Basically this. I cant see woz really bringing the company to the heights jobs did though. he comes across as the type of guy to be totally comfortable with taking a backseat and just doing his thing without the stress of leadership

people love to praise woz but if he was in charge of apple it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is today. while he certainly played a big part of it, the world isn't just tech. it was largely because of jobs that apple became huge and it was further proven after he was fired and came back, so yes, the person in charge does make a difference.

And I'm not discrediting him as a very successful CEO, I'm merely discrediting him as a genius. I don't believe he can be spoken of as such, because he isn't that unique.

Cause he was good at marketing, something most nerds fail at.

He had a marketing vision that was ahead of his time, he had what all the engineers, coders, etc around him lacked of

>didn't do engineering
>most inventions attributed to him were actually Tesla's
>the thing he's most known for, the filament lightbulb, was actually invented by one of his black employees

Why is this person considered a genius? There are plenty of people on this very board who are much, much, much more skilled with technology than him.

>Why is this person considered a genius?
He ran a successful company and made a ton of money.
He didn't invent anything, but he was part of why the company was doing so well.
The company is still doing fine without him but that is because nobody cares about lost potential.

This is an illusion. You see what is today as THE future, when in reality what is today is just one future. Without jobs, something different would have been successful, and the world and the technology would have moved forward with something else. A different, or several different products or brands, or ideas. The coders, the engineers, you say they lacked the marketing vision that he had. But there were plenty of other people who could've had their own marketing visions and carried them out. He is not so unique.

So what exactly did he do, if he didn't invent a lightbulb? Maybe his genius status can be questioned too. I don't know much about him though.

he's a genius because everyone knows apple and everyone knows who he is. that's it. no one actually knows how smart he is, minus the people he worked with. the masses think he's a genius because he did something slightly esoteric.

i've thought about it overtime and wondered what actually makes a persona genius. is it his capacity to learn something quickly? is it the act of knowing many things? many people can satisfy a single definition of 'genius' but not many people actually satisfy the whole lot of them. a trivia expert could be considered a genius if we chalk it up as someone who knows many things. a plumber could be considered a genius if a genius is someone who knows esoteric topics. does being the best at a certain trade make you a genius?

so i've come to the conclusion that a genius is not only a person who knows many things (and this might not even be true all the time) but someone who knows how to dissect things down to their core meaning. they can understand how things work--both people and ideas--and abstract these processes into simpler terms.

one thing i come across when dealing with pseudointellectuals is that they try very hard to give off a vibe of intelligence. they use words whose meaning they do not know. they try to talk with lots of jargon and enjoy confusing people. this is the same idea as complicated code. people trying to make things complicated for the sole purpose of having a complicated system. because complicated == complex, right?

and for this, i have to consider Jobs somewhat of a genius. For all the shit Sup Forums gives him, there are many other famous entrepreneurs who are much worse than Jobs was--for example Elon Musk. Musk loves to hear himself talk about things that sound remotely esoteric and uses this just as a pajeet uses complicated code. it doesn't make you smart, it just makes you a faggot

Hurr durr tesla was such a god.

Did you know he was asexual?

That means he was a minority, isn't that cool?

Reddit is so cool you guys

>He didn't invent anything, but he was part of the company and it was doing so well.
Fixed that for you.

WE

This.

Genius at being a copycat.

Because he made the first "smart"phone and had a lot of Charisma.

A salesman in the store is "part of the company", he was C effin O.

>brought his company back from the bring many times
Once, and it's because Bill Gates helped him out.

I for one see someone as a genius if they are so exceptionally good at something that it makes them unique.

Yes, but I disagree with the "why" you put in there.
I believe that Apple could be successful without him, which basically means that he is not WHY it was successful.

>Why is this person considered a genius?
He combined bsd code the right way, and sold it while overcharging for the hardware that it ran on.
Low cost OS/ software development, and a huge premium on the hardware to run said OS = profits.

>I believe that Apple could be successful without him
Why? Apple starts to die without him. It happened before, and it's starting to show signs of it about to happen now.

>Apple could be successful without him
Bullshit, Jobs single handedly saved Apple from collapsing when he came back as CEO in the late 90s

Jobs was an amazing analyst, he could predict market forces and which ways things would go.

He started the decline of flash, he kicked off smart touch devices which were capacitive rather than resistive, he understood what consumers wanted in devices and only included those whilst omitting others that weren't essential. He helped design and create devices that consumers wanted and bought in droves. The iPhone, Intel Macs, iPad, iPods.

If there was one way he was a genius, it was in being able to know what consumers wanted.

He was a faggot and couldn't out himself at that time in fear of repercussions

he was genius at making people believe he was a genius

>Why is this person considered a genius?
Is he?
>the thing he's most known for, the filament lightbulb, was actually invented by one of his black employees
*He most well known for patenting the first filament lightbulb, and the "black" inventor was one of many employees who were paid to conduct research for Edison.

Just because something happens with him, or something happens without him, doesn't mean something else couldn't have happened, doesn't mean he was the ultimate solution, or doesn't mean it could not or would not work without him.

He saved it, but someone else could have too. Just because he was the one who saved it, doesn't mean nobody else could. It's funny how people think that an event has no alternatives.

Because innovated being gay, and he was gay.

>Jobs was an amazing analyst, he could predict market forces and which ways things would go.
He was an amazing memer. He was able to use the funds that was saved from pilfering bsd licensed code that would normally be used to make an operating system, and diverted that
money into powerful marketing campaigns.
>he kicked off smart touch devices which were capacitive rather than resistive
He took ideas that were done/completed many years before, and rebranded them under the apple logo. His talent was that he knew how to run extremely aggressive marketing campaigns.

>Just because something happens with him, or something happens without him, doesn't mean something else couldn't have happened, doesn't mean he was the ultimate solution, or doesn't mean it could not or would not work without him.
He was the driving force behind apple, and it has been proven that apple is shit without him.

They gave them the money but Steve did know what that would be the next big thing. He never created something in his life, but he knew when something would become big.
Smartphones, Tablets, Ultrabooks everything is because of that old asshole.

>He was able to use the funds that was saved from pilfering bsd licensed code that would normally be used to make an operating system
iOS and MacOS were both BSD based systems.
>and diverted that
money into powerful marketing campaigns.
That, and making a revolutionary device. Call every iPhone after what you will, the iPhone released in 2007 was revolutionary.

>He took ideas that were done/completed many years before, and rebranded them under the apple logo.
You're referring to the LG Prada i assume? The LG Prada was terrible to operate and used a UI based on Adobe Flash for gods sake. The only award LG could win for that phone was "best looking". Please don't FUD. I've done my research.

>In 2005, Apple CEO Steve Jobs conceived an idea of using a multi-touch touchscreen to interact with a computer in a way in which he could type directly onto the display, he decided that it needed to have a triple layered touch screen, a very new technology of the time this helped out with removing the physical keyboard and mouse, the same as a tablet computer. Jobs recruited a group of Apple engineers to investigate the idea as a side project. When Jobs reviewed the prototype and its user interface, he conceived a second idea of implementing the technology onto a mobile phone. The whole effort was called Project Purple 2 and began in 2005.

A whole year before the Prada was released.

All he had to do was let Office products onto his platform, and in return he got piles of cash to put into making new products?

Why the fuck wouldn't you?

WUZ

>and it has been proven that apple is shit without him.
He was the driving force because he was the driving force. It's not the case that nobody else could've been a driving force for the company. He just happened to be it. Apple was shit without him, you say. Indeed, but it didn't have to be. And it didn't have to be him who saved it. This is so funny, you think that becasue he was the one who saved it, it would HAVE TO be him who did or else it would never have been. You think just because A happens with B, it has to be A and B to work, and nothing else.

>but it didn't have to be. And it didn't have to be him who saved it.

Holy mental gymnastics

>He was the driving force because he was the driving force
>hurr durr what if
There are no "what ifs" here kid, the history won't change, it's not that it couldn't be someone else that saved Apple, it's that Jobs did a good job on that. He may not be a genius by everyone's standards but you can't discredit him on that.

>iOS and MacOS were both BSD based systems.
exactly
>You're referring to the LG Prada i assume?
No. I'm reffering to previous smartphones, and tablet pcs that where already made, and or working conceptualized prototypes made by other manufacturers prior to apple's devices.
>All he had to do was let Office products onto his platform, and in return he got piles of cash to put into making new products?
Yea he got piles of cash from Bill Gates saving apple.

>someone else could have too
Except in the case of apple there was no alternative
Tell me any possible candidate who could have saved Apple in the same way as Jobs did it

Same as Mr. Gates, good businessman, good project manager.

He was extremely charismatic too:
NeXTSTEP Demo by Steve:
youtu.be/gveTy4EmNyk
iPhone Reveal
youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ

I really think he was a pretty cool guy in the 90s before he came back to Apple. After that he began to flip-flop and act like an idiot and attack people for no reason. Still, NeXT, CUPS, multi-touch, and FreeBSD patches coming from his company are nice enough for me not to hate the company completely.

Well it was actually Bill Gates who saved apple, and Steve Jobs seemed to be just the right guy to ask Bill Gates for help.

It wasn't pilfering, he obeyed the conditions of the BSD license, and apple have contributed code back for years. opensource.apple.com/

>No. I'm reffering to previous smartphones
which had resistive screens and were not multitouch. Apple acquired Fingworks who had done most of the modern research, and that technology went into the iPhone. It was improved on. That's like saying AMD copied Intel because they make processors.

>Yea he got piles of cash from Bill Gates saving apple.
Which he didn't squander. He instead made the iPod and put Apple back on the map.

I agree he was doing a good job. A great job at that. I just don't think he did a job that makes him a genius.

He was publicly called a borderline sociopath. Former Apple evangelist Guy Kawasaki(?) said publicly he was amoral, not immoral, and meant that as a defense of him. But he did have some kind of talent or genius, and presumably he wasn't mean to all people, just some of them.

Wasn't a genius at anything besides marketing, and being enough of an asshole to get to a position to dictate his vision for products. I don't particularly care for his and Ives' idea of minimalism at all costs but it does usually "look nice" and works especially well at appealing to braindead normies.

>Well it was actually Bill Gates who saved apple, and Steve Jobs seemed to be just the right guy to ask Bill Gates for help.
Didn't even know that. How do you mean?

see

>All he had to do was let Office products onto his platform, and in return he got piles of cash to put into making new products?

>In a remarkable feat of negotiating legerdemain, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs got needed cash — in return for non-voting shares — and an assurance that Microsoft would support Office for the Mac for five years. Apple agreed to drop a long-running lawsuit in which they alleged Microsoft copied the look and feel of the Mac OS for Windows and to make Internet Explorer the default browser on its computers — but not the only choice.

>Which he didn't squander. He instead made the iPod and put Apple back on the map.
Yea Bill gates really did put apple back on the map.
>which had resistive screens and were not multitouch.
Multitouch devices predated apples devices sweetie.
>Apple acquired Fingworks who had done most of the modern research, and that technology went into the iPhone. It was improved on.
Xerox had already made multitouch lcd based tablet pcs/devices for microsoft in 1999.
>That's like saying AMD copied Intel because they make processors.
In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement.

>Yea Bill gates really did put apple back on the map.
Bill gates had non-voting shares and in no way had any input into the iPod.

>Multitouch devices predated apples devices sweetie.
Yes they did and I haven't disputed that. You can drop your shitty sweetie meme. We are talking about smartphones you retard.

>Xerox had already made multitouch lcd based tablet pcs/devices for microsoft in 1999.
I said most of the MODERN research, which means post-2000 in case you didn't fucking know. I'm not disputing MULTITOUCH DEVICES, we are talking about its implementation in smartphones.

>oh look i can copy wikipedia hahaha look at me
You can misrepresent my argument all you want. I am still correct.

He brought tech to the masses.
Before him no one but basement dwelling nerds owned computers.

Really? Nobody in my country here in europe knew what apple was, we just knew what normal computers with windows was. People didn't really own apples until late 90s or early 00s here.

This is the delusional apple fag version
Bill Gates/Microsoft bought stocks to keep Apple afloat in order to keep existing government contracts which where impossible if Microsoft was a monopoly. Apple in turn dropped a lawsuit, agreed to licensing Microsoft software, and some rumored "gentlmen's agreements" between the two companies where made.

>delusional apple fag versoin

wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html

These are my sources, sorry for copy pasting, you fucking douche.

>MUH DENNIS RITCHIE

>Bill gates had non-voting shares and in no way had any input into the iPod.
No one said that Bill Gatess had anything to do with the iphone user. Just that He saved apple.
>Yes they did and I haven't disputed that.
You disputed the fact that previous examples of multitouch smartphones, and tablets existed.
>You can drop your shitty sweetie meme.
But you really are being precious sweetie.
>We are talking about smartphones you retard.
And smartphones existed before apple "reinvented' it, no matter how much you try to move the goal posts around.

>These are my sources, sorry for copy pasting, you fucking douche.
These are the aple rewashing history sources kid.
Find sources from early 2k, when apple was still cock blowing Microsoft for saving them, or at least use the other available sources when you search not just the only 2 that back up your whining.

do not worry my friend , cancer kill him as he was, cancer.

>You disputed the fact that previous examples of multitouch smartphones, and tablets existed.
I had already mentioned the LG Prada here: 1-0

>No one said that Bill Gatess had anything to do with the iphone user. Just that He saved apple.
I didn't mention the iPhone, I said iPod. I have already conceded that Bill Gates saved Apple, but Steve could have squandered that money. He didn't and went on to make the iMac and the iPod, both massively successful devices with no input from Microsoft.
2-0

>But you really are being precious sweetie.
You are literally lying when anyone can read the thread.
3-0

>And smartphones existed before apple "reinvented' it, no matter how much you try to move the goal posts around.
I know they did, see above for my mentioning of the LG Prada

4-0 that's a clean sweep.

Not arguing with retards.
cya

If so called “genius” nerds were left to their own devices, they’d design the technological equivalent of pic related.

“Geniuses” need a visionary to guide them. Someone to think of something revolutionary or evolutionary to improve the lives of the normie masses. That’s where someone like Jobs comes into the picture.

money.cnn.com/1997/08/08/technology/apple_microsoft_pkg/

thisdayintechhistory.com/08/06/apple-and-microsoft-call-truce/

newyorker.com/magazine/1997/09/08/the-perceptionist

huh, nothing hear to suggest what you're saying about government contracts is true.

Sounds like you're full of shit.

He was a brilliant businessman, but that's about where his genius ends.

>get cancer
>"i'll eat fruit instead of going through actual cancer treatment, that'll sort it out!"
>dies

He was also a megalomaniac asshole. But I have to give him credit; he managed to convince everyone that a mac is not a computer, but a lifestyle. And, that being exclusively relegated to their hardware, was hip and cool.

Wrong. Each of those inventions existed before Steve got his hands on them. He's just excellent at stealing ideas and taking credit for them.

This.

In a world without Apple and Steve Jobs everyone would be using blackberry phones and IBM Thinkpads running Windows Vista 3.0

I know most of you are greasy pony tailed neck beards who have never gone outside to play catch with your friends in your lives, but just humor me for a second.
Think of this like a sports talent scout. A talent scout is very valuable to a sports program because he has the vision to spot potential. They're valued enough to be paid millions of dollars every year. They are valuable even though they themselves aren't players.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not a top tier athlete is reaching his full potential while working the docks in NY. Because that's the same shit as having multi touch on a god damn xerox machine and acting like Apple didn't even do anything.

>I had already mentioned the LG Prada here
You're the only one mentioning the prada though.
>I didn't mention the iPhone, I said iPod. I have already conceded that Bill Gates saved Apple,
Because he did save apple. There's no getting around that.
>Steve could have squandered that money.
It's in his best interest to not, so what the fuck is there any reason to be proud of this.
>You are literally lying when anyone can read the thread.
Where are the lies user? Anyone can reread what I've posted, and call me out on my lies.
>I know they did, see above for my mentioning of the LG Prada
Again you're the only one who cares about the Prada, and keep bringing it up. There where many multitouch smartphones, tablets, and music players that existed before apple released them, and for some reason you are fixated on the prada which you where the only one to bring up in the first place.
>cya
No one's stopping you from being a faggot elsewhere kid, so may leave.

>huh, nothing hear to suggest what you're saying about government contracts is true.
It is not suggested, because it is imperative. A main requirement to hold a government contract is that the company wishing to do business does not hold a monopoly.
God bless your soul if you don't know this.

Steve Jobs knew how to write software an in fact gave a pretty comprehensive demo on Nextstep's developer tools in a video, where he builds an application.

It wasn't his job but he knew some programming.

He knew how to scream the right way at the right people

Don't forget his pigeon wife.

"Yes, I loved that pigeon, I loved her as a man loves a woman, and she loved me.

– Nikola Tesla"

People who don't understand the underlying philosophy that drives the design of the software and hardware at apple are naturally prone to have distaste for it.

You don't need hardware creep if you optimize the software. You don't have optimization problems if you work with a standard hardware set. You charge a premium to pay high-end developers to design your software, and standardize your hardware set around upper-end features so as to standardize a premium experience.

iPhone vs. Android is a perfect comparison, the comparisons of RAM and CPU specs simply aren't equivalent because the software can be standardized and optimized for the Apple product to meet a certain design goal.

However on top of this, the user has a LOT of freedom especially when you stop limiting your actions to certain patterns.

this
please stop worshiping the author of the two most destructive computer viruses

>shit about optimizing software and standardizing
>steve jobs loved skeumorphism

apple faggots

What else do you call a guy that can't do any of this stuff and fools everyone into believing he's a genius?

Like Bill Gates.
Stole and re-sold someone else's work as his own.
Admitted that he copied Xerox and Apple to make Windows.
Bought Powerpoint and rebadged it.
Had Word and Excel written to Steve Jobs' specifications.
Inflicted the world's worst non-standard web browser on dumb Windows users.
Convinced idiots that "hard to use" meant "tech savvy".
Partnered with Anti-Virus makers so that viruses still plague Windows. couldn't even make a good A/V program even with control of the whole source code.

>bottom of the pic
Most if not all big companies do that, though. When they're small, it's A-OK to steal, but when they actually become a dominant player they start playing the lawsuit game against any small company that tries to steal their market (if trying to buy them doesn't work).