Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

WiiMarioHacker

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 3, 2010
96
0
.....But am starting to dislike Stevie. I think greed has gotten to him.

Reasons why I dislike him:

1) "Please Leave Us Alone" - Not professional and simply rude. If Jobs didn't want to answer her emails, then why did he even start a fight. I've seen the "Oh, He's busy" argument, but what most people don't realize, is that Jobs is the CEO of a company. Which means that if he wanted to do something (vacation etc) he could. He's his own boss.

2) Tearing down a 1920's mansion built by Daniel Jacking. For those who don't know, Daniel Jacking "pioneered the exploitation of low-grade porphyry copper ores". (aka, Copper) - How dare Jobs wanting to destroy a piece of American HISTORY. If it was a regular mansion, built by some no body (no historical importance), I could understand. I do, however, praise him for not going to build a mega-house.


The reason why I still buy Apple products, is because they have only the Apple logo, not "Created by Steve Jobs". However, I am still an Apple fan, just not a Steve Jobs fan.


Thanks.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Apr 19, 2004
6,985
2,492
2) Tearing down a 1920's mansion built by Daniel Jacking. For those who don't know, Daniel Jacking "pioneered the exploitation of low-grade porphyry copper ores". (aka, Copper) - How dare Jobs wanting to destroy a piece of American HISTORY. If it was a regular mansion, built by some no body (no historical importance), I could understand. I do, however, praise him for not going to build a mega-house.

If you want to complain about an historic and nationally known American building being torn down, then complain about Steinbrenner and NYC for tearing down Old Yankee Stadium. OYS is a bigger blow to American history. What makes this house so historic? Is it only from the guy who built it? Also, I believe Jobs offered for someone to come in and move the home to another location, etc but no one intervened. It isn't like Jobs didn't try and work out a compromise. No one was willing to step up and do anything besides complain.
 

Phormic

macrumors regular
May 24, 2007
135
12
You can dislike Jobs for a lot of reasons but I'm not sure if telling an annoying student to go away, who was pestering him and his PR department for a statement to help with her homework, is really one of them.

As for the Jackling house, if memory serves, Jobs offered to sell the house for free, if the new owner was willing to move the house off the land.
 

Consultant

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
13,314
36
1. That story is BS.
2. Bill Gates built a $150 million house, razing what was there before. Compared to other billionaires, the new Steve house is relatively TINY and definitely modest.
 

netdog

macrumors 603
Feb 6, 2006
5,760
38
London
Jobs is his own boss.

The shareholders aren't going to toss him, and if they did, he'd go off and do something else in line with whatever his vision is at the moment, not kow-tow to a bunch of suits.

Last time Apple tossed him, he did just fine. He created NeXT and the foundation for what would become OS X, and he created Pixar, perhaps the greatest animation company of our time.

But yeah, my point is that Steve Jobs, unlike most of the world, is running his own show, whatever one may think of him.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
I like apple products, but I don't like how apple as an extension of Jobs behaves.

The leave us alone brouhaha both the student and Jobs deserve blame on this. for the student expect a multibillion dollar corporation to help out to achieve better grades is crass at best, incredulous at worst.

As for razing the 1920s house. He bought it, and he should be able to do what he wants to it. People who buy property have the right to do what ever they want. He received the proper variences/permits/rights to do he wanted so he's finally moving forward after a long and arduous process.

Jobs is a genius and saved apple from oblivion, but that doesn't make him a "nice" person, or someone to adore/worship.
 

Winni

macrumors 68040
Oct 15, 2008
3,207
1,196
Germany.
As for razing the 1920s house. He bought it, and he should be able to do what he wants to it. People who buy property have the right to do what ever they want.

That is an interesting standpoint, especially on macrumors.com. If Jobs can do with an historical building what he wants, why again should we not be allowed to install Mac OS X on a PC of our choice? Or use our iPhones with a non-Apple-AppStore?
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
.....But am starting to dislike Stevie. I think greed has gotten to him.

Reasons why I dislike him:

1) "Please Leave Us Alone" - Not professional and simply rude. If Jobs didn't want to answer her emails, then why did he even start a fight. I've seen the "Oh, He's busy" argument, but what most people don't realize, is that Jobs is the CEO of a company. Which means that if he wanted to do something (vacation etc) he could. He's his own boss.

2) Tearing down a 1920's mansion built by Daniel Jacking. For those who don't know, Daniel Jacking "pioneered the exploitation of low-grade porphyry copper ores". (aka, Copper) - How dare Jobs wanting to destroy a piece of American HISTORY. If it was a regular mansion, built by some no body (no historical importance), I could understand. I do, however, praise him for not going to build a mega-house.


The reason why I still buy Apple products, is because they have only the Apple logo, not "Created by Steve Jobs". However, I am still an Apple fan, just not a Steve Jobs fan.


Thanks.

If you're an Apple fan, you're a Jobs fan. Period. He's the mind behind Apple gear. You don't have to like his personality, though, which by the way, has ZERO to do with what counts: producing more great Apple gear.
 

MorphingDragon

macrumors 603
Mar 27, 2009
5,159
6
The World Inbetween
That is an interesting standpoint, especially on macrumors.com. If Jobs can do with an historical building what he wants, why again should we not be allowed to install Mac OS X on a PC of our choice? Or use our iPhones with a non-Apple-AppStore?

Because physical property and intellectual property are very different beasts.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to run the Xbox firmware on my iMac? Why shouldn't I be allowed to chip my PS3 to run Xbox 360 games (BTW, both can be done) Why shouldn't I be allowed to run the same license of windows on 20 different VMs?

If you're an Apple fan, you're a Jobs fan. Period. He's the mind behind Apple gear. You don't have to like his personality, though, which by the way, has ZERO to do with what counts: producing more great Apple gear.

Though to his credit, people can like Microsoft products while absolutely despising Ballmer.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
That is an interesting standpoint, especially on macrumors.com. If Jobs can do with an historical building what he wants, why again should we not be allowed to install Mac OS X on a PC of our choice? Or use our iPhones with a non-Apple-AppStore?

Because the old addage, do as I say not as I do fits.

You're 100% correct that Jobs is doing what he wants, but forces the users to abide by his rules.

Because physical property and intellectual property are very different beasts.
in this case it really isn't different. Apple could license OSX in a way to permit this, likewise allow different app stores. They choose to keep things locked down as a business decision. Apple is not about freedom or choice but doing it their way, conversely Jobs is taking advantage of the freedoms allowed him as a property owner to raze his house.

If you're an Apple fan, you're a Jobs fan. Period.

I disagree, I like apple and its products but I am in no way a Steve Jobs fan, in fact he comes off rather as a richard head most of the time.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
You're 100% correct that Jobs is doing what he wants, but forces the users to abide by his rules.

in this case it really isn't different. Apple could license OSX in a way to permit this, likewise allow different app stores. They choose to keep things locked down as a business decision. Apple is not about freedom or choice but doing it their way, conversely Jobs is taking advantage of the freedoms allowed him as a property owner to raze his house.


.

It's a shame this stuff isn't actually a problem. In fact, it's key to their success. As far as the house goes, it's neither here nor there. A non-issue.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
It's a shame this stuff isn't actually a problem. In fact, it's key to their success. As far as the house goes, it's neither here nor there. A non-issue.

Its not a problem for me, since I'm running a hackinstosh and I have an android phone so I actually have choices :D
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
It's a shame this stuff isn't actually a problem. In fact, it's key to their success. As far as the house goes, it's neither here nor there. A non-issue.
Lack of flash on mobile web device for me is a problem. That is why I don't have an iPhone or iPad.

That's one potential sale Apple have lost. And probably many more. It is an issue, it's just being ignored in hope HTML5 catches on and it eventually isn't a problem.
 

Bernard SG

macrumors 65816
Jul 3, 2010
1,354
7
That is an interesting standpoint, especially on macrumors.com. If Jobs can do with an historical building what he wants, why again should we not be allowed to install Mac OS X on a PC of our choice? Or use our iPhones with a non-Apple-AppStore?

That's a preposterous comparison. The Mac OS X issue is a legal one, that is founded on existing laws. On the other hand, the old mansion was not protected against destruction by any law or regulation, hence it could be acquired in full property by Jobs.
Buying a Mac OS X DVD doesn't grant you property of the system, it grants you a license to use the software within a specific framework.
That being said, Apple is not known to go after individual users who infringe Apple's intellectual property as long as it is not done in a way that threatens Apple's commercial interests.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Lack of flash on mobile web device for me is a problem. That is why I don't have an iPhone or iPad.

That's one potential sale Apple have lost. And probably many more. It is an issue, it's just being ignored in hope HTML5 catches on and it eventually isn't a problem.

Apple succeeds because they know when to say "no."

They don't need you when they have 20 others lined up ready to buy. Flash is no longer an issue, anyway.

Everyone can say about any company "well they lost MY business because xyz." BFD. If the big picture shows them succeeding (especially where others are not, i.e., the iPad) then you're just a drop in the bucket.


Its not a problem for me, since I'm running a hackinstosh and I have an android phone so I actually have choices :D

Yep. You're running a fake Mac, which violates Apple's EULA, but there's no point in Apple pursuing the little guy, obviously.

As for Android, good choice. Eric T. Mole did his best, but it's no iPhone.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Yep. You're running a fake Mac, which violates Apple's EULA, but there's no point in Apple pursuing the little guy, obviously.
Fake or real, it matters not to me, as I'm able to run OSX. As for the argument that breaking the EULA is illegal, that's still up to debate so far courts like in germany have already stated that it is legal. I'm breaking an agreement, not a law.

As for Android, good choice. Eric T. Mole did his best, but it's no iPhone.
Nope and thank goodness android is no iPhone. That's exactly why I bought it. Android offers a lot of options, choices and advantages.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.