Steve Wozniak back at Apple

[mrsir2009]

So if i can avoid spending money i will

Your going on about how its not right to turn big profits because of the rescission and poverty etc... But spending money is good for the economy and the world. The reason depressions happen is because people don't spend their money, then all profits grind to a standstill... Then money becomes worthless.

IMO the best thing to do is make as much money as you can, and spend it all.

 

[vvswarup]

sorry but maybe i am no capitalist as i dont think a company should work to creat profits for the sake of profit making , so just enough to cover the cost is fair and honest , any more profit that created should go back into society to do good things , like building hospitals , schools, .... instead of making some people like shareholders rich while others have to live in poverty , as i am radical in that view , call me a right wing Marxist (not communist please , because communism in the forms known to mankind has more in common with Fascism and Capitalism then with Socialism ) and as you see in the recession we are in , and we are in since at least the 70's as from then on western governments have gone only into dept while some corporations create billions a year profits and thats wrong and antisocial

as from wiki:
"Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.
Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates for the creation of such a society."

so i would still produce top end Mac's , some need them to do their Job , and a life without computers today is unthinkable so we need them , but not as luxuries ,so i would produce them but sell them to just to cover the production and development cost and not to make profit on top and i would make sure the production workers in China get at a fair wage ,like if they would if they would work in Cupertino ... the son of one of my production workers in China if i would run Apple should not need to sell a kidney to buy a iPhone 4(took it as a exaggerating example i dont think he was a son of a Apple employee ) , they would get one for free every year as a thank you for good work , and they could take the Mac's with little flaws like a scratch on the back(these things happen in production ) for free if they want one, and Schools and students around the world would get them for just the production cost instead of just a discount , as i believe a student should only have to worry about his exams and not about money as they are our future and a lot cant afford to go to university because they cant even afford the equiment needed

Well you said it right there. This isn't communist Russia. Every business exists to make money. I have yet to hear a business say, "You know what, we're making too much money so we're going to cut our prices."

Also, where do you think the funding comes from to design those products? It comes from shareholders. As the providers of capital, why should their interests be neglected?

 

[MacHamster68]

sorry i dont believe in that capitalistic system which only exists to exploit the majority of humans to make a small minority live in luxury .

I dont believe in that OSX should be only accessible to a minority who are priviledged enough to afford a Mac either

so Apple can afford to be more open , nobody stops them to sell Mac's , but you should not need to buy a Mac only to get OSX

 

[bpaluzzi]

sorry i dont believe in that capitalistic system which only exists to exploit the majority of humans to make a small minority live in luxury .

I dont believe in that OSX should be only accessible to a minority who are priviledged enough to afford a Mac either

so Apple can afford to be more open , nobody stops them to sell Mac's , but you should not need to buy a Mac only to get OSX

That's Apple's business model. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Good idea.

 

[MacHamster68]

That's Apple's business model. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Pretty straightforward.

its not about money really , its all about choice and OSX and Apple dictates what hardware i have to use , i can only choose between unupgradeable consumer Mac's (Mac Mini , iMac) and MacPro , all only come with intel inside like there would be absolute no other cpu manufacturers in that world

 

[Brianws71]

Has anyone thought that Mr. Cook probably had the knowledge that Steve was in his last hours of living while he was giving the keynote. So if he came out flat maybe that was the reason. Im sure he was very close friends with Steve and that would be hard for anyone to do with the knowledge what was really going on and still have to givethe speech. Just a thought.

 

[Tsuchiya]

Maybe it's just me, but I never found Steve's keynotes exciting either. I always thought they were considerably dry and unexciting. New product? There it is just put up on the powerpoint slide usually without any fanfare leading up to it.

I agree, a lot of the time when Steve announced something new I wouldn't necessarily be keen on what's been announced. But he could sell a product really well. Like when the iPhone 3G was announced that was essentially just a iPhone 2G with a budget case and a 3G antenna he sounded absolutely enthused at the "beautiful plastic back." I was just thinking "Steve, chill out it's just plastic ."

He announced things proudly and with confidence unlike the circus that was the 4S announcement. I loved how Phil Schiller specifically mentioned how it looked the same as the 4 on the outside. Steve wouldn't have done that, he would simply ignored the fact that people will be thinking it and sell the new features.

 

[mrsir2009]

its not about money really , its all about choice and OSX and Apple dictates what hardware i have to use , i can only choose between unupgradeable consumer Mac's (Mac Mini , iMac) and MacPro , all only come with intel inside like there would be absolute no other cpu manufacturers in that world

But it is because they dictate which hardware you can use Mac OSX on that OSX is such a great operating system. If it was licensed out like Windows Mac OSX would be plagued with endless problems, bugs, incompatibility... Apple & Mac OSX would both lose their reputation and the business model that drove them to success.

I read somewhere that Steve Jobs got the hives at the very thought of his perfect, finely tuned software running on another manufacturers crappy hardware. It'd ruin it.

...Not to mention that Apple makes almost all of it's profits on hardware. If OSX were universial Apple would have to sell it for more than $50! Windows Ultimate costs $400 remember The only reason Apple can sell OSX for less than $50 is because people have to buy $1000+ hardware from them to run it...

 

[*LTD*]

But it is because they dictate which hardware you can use Mac OSX on that OSX is such a great operating system. If it was licensed out like Windows Mac OSX would be plagued with endless problems, bugs, incompatibility... Apple & Mac OSX would both lose their reputation and the business model that drove them to success.

I read somewhere that Steve Jobs got the hives at the very thought of his perfect, finely tuned software running on another manufacturers crappy hardware. It'd ruin it.

Someone gets it, I see.

There's a reason Apple does not license OS X to those other box-makers. It isn't by sheer accident. That reason is in large part responsible for Macs scoring highest in consumer satisfaction for years and years running. Macs are the crown jewel of consumer computing. They wouldn't be if they came loaded on eMachines and cheap Dells.

 

[mrsir2009]

Someone gets it, I see.

There's a reason Apple does not license OS X to those other box-makers. It isn't by sheer accident. That reason is in large part responsible for Macs scoring highest in consumer satisfaction for years and years running. Macs are the crown jewel of consumer computing. They wouldn't be if they came loaded on eMachines and cheap Dells.

No matter how hard Windows tries they will not be able to achieve the consumer satisfaction, ease of use and the absence of incompatibility issues/bugs/glitches that Apple has achieved.

 

[MacHamster68]

But it is because they dictate which hardware you can use Mac OSX on that OSX is such a great operating system. If it was licensed out like Windows Mac OSX would be plagued with endless problems, bugs, incompatibility... Apple & Mac OSX would both lose their reputation and the business model that drove them to success.

I read somewhere that Steve Jobs got the hives at the very thought of his perfect, finely tuned software running on another manufacturers crappy hardware. It'd ruin it.

...Not to mention that Apple makes almost all of it's profits on hardware. If OSX were universial Apple would have to sell it for more than $50! Windows Ultimate costs $400 remember The only reason Apple can sell OSX for less than $50 is because people have to buy $1000+ hardware from them to run it...

i know how much Windows7 ultimate cost (£229.99), i bought it. as i gave up hope that i will be able to get a suitable desktop from Apple just waiting for my 8core bulldozer and ASUS board to arrive , my sapphire 6950HD is already here waiting

 

[mrsir2009]

i know how much Windows7 ultimate cost (£229.99), i bought it. as i gave up hope that i will be able to get a suitable desktop from Apple just waiting for my 8core bulldozer and ASUS board to arrive

Woah, are you a gamer?

 

[MacHamster68]

nope but a movie cutter using AVID and i need performance and space for harddrives inside and ethernet PCI cards for the AVID hardware and thats expensive enough , so i saved money and a lot of it instead of spending it on a MacPro.
that pc will never see the web or a game

 

[jamesarm97]

I thought Tim was un-motivated at the keynote, but then after all the news came out, I was wondering if he knew Steve was on his deathbed at the time of the keynote since it happened the day before his death? Maybe he just could not get enthusiastic because of that.

 

[vitzr]

I thought Tim was un-motivated at the keynote, but then after all the news came out, I was wondering if he knew Steve was on his deathbed at the time of the keynote since it happened the day before his death? Maybe he just could not get enthusiastic because of that.

I'm with you, I believe you are absolutely correct.

He and Steve were closer than many are aware of. There is no question in my mind that Tim was overcome with grief. The man he had worked side by side with for years was fading fast and the last thing Tim wanted to do on that day was give a keynote.

Personally I have a very high level of respect for Tim Cook and feel very certain that he will carry Apple through to continuing success in the years ahead. He's a brilliant man, no ego problems, not afraid to delegate, the consumate professional.

Tim Cook is the finest person to be at the helm replacing, the irreplaceable Steve Jobs.

Guts alone, just think of all the comparisons he will have to endure, all the times that people will think "well Steve would have done it like this".

Tim Cook is strong, highly savvy, deeply experienced, and possesses a passion for Apple that simply doesn't show as strong as it is.

 

[an-other]

Additional Random Thoughts

Tim is a genius with supply chain, and solved a problem that plagued Apple for years. You can't sell products you don't have. The Mac VX was a prime example. The computer was replaced by a newer model before the first delivery. Ordering a PowerBook upon relase "back in the day" was a guaranteed multi-week or more delay. Trying to explain that in the business world? "Sorry Boss, I can't get out the TPS reports because my computer is going to be delivered in 6 weeks." The handling of the iPad demand was impressive. Yes, there was wait times, but nothing touching three months. The iPad was not a guaranteed success. Many experts predicted it would flop!

I have an optimistic give Tim a chance view.

I can't imagine keynotes blowing anyone away anymore. You know it's over when the local news reports on a rumour of a feature in the next product. There's too many news agencies/web pages etc. trying to break the story of Apple's next big thing the expectations can never be managed. I know I was disappointed when Tim did not reveal the 4S had an intergrated espresso machine as was reported on some web page.

Woz is an engineer's engineer. Apple would be foolish not to offer him the opportunity to romp through their product playground and offer suggestions/opinions. It'd also be great to see him at keynotes as an esteemed spectator. Integrating him in the business process of the company just doesn't make sense for either party.

 

[vitzr]

1) I can't imagine keynotes blowing anyone away anymore. You know it's over when the local news reports on a rumour of a feature in the next product.

2) Woz is an engineer's engineer. Apple would be foolish not to offer him the opportunity to romp through their product playground and offer suggestions/opinions. It'd also be great to see him at keynotes as an esteemed spectator. Integrating him in the business process of the company just doesn't make sense for either party.

1a) I could not agree more. Your point is well taken and ever so appropriate.

2a) Woz is highly under-appreciated in current times, due to the fact "he doesn't blow his own horn" nor did he ever.

Steve W is also a man who I have the utmost respect for. Quietly with great determination, thought and wisdom, he created the inner core of Apple's products. As a fellow engineer, I do understand his thinking and his incredible discipline. He toiled away with not a wasted moment as he created so much of what continues to be part of Apple's engineering protocol today.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Really? Whats his position at Apple?

Co-Founder

 

[steviem]

i know, but i running mine sucessfully since 10 years ..means i can live from it and thats all that counts for me , i never had the intention to make big profit , i do it just to cover the cost of daily living and for the fun . So if i can avoid spending money i will , means i need the product that does the job , and i dont care how old it is or how outdated for others , if it does the job and is cheap then fine , i would spend more if i would see sence in it
For OSX it means i would like to see it available for all plattforms , i mean Microsoft is creating a little profit from selling their operating system too as far as i know .
Apple did not well with selling operating systems in the past has a reason , they did not well because their OS did run only on certain hardware like today .
and i believe the only who would change that is Woz

Having said that as its proven by some hackintoshers that OSX can run on AMD processor based platforms it makes me think back ..Officially OSX was originally made for PPC so Apple said and nobody did expect anything else , but they secretly made it from the start to run on intel .So i believe OSX is secretly made from the beginning 10.0 to run on AMD processors too

You know AMD processors are x86 (well AMD64 if we're splitting hairs) right?

Of course they could run on AMD processors from the start, and Apple made no illusion that they were testing OSX on x86 hardware from the very start. It's not a conspiracy, just a fact that AMD and Intel use the same fundamental architecture. It's where some AMD processors don't have some additional instruction sets where there is a need for people to write modified kernels for OSX86.

Although this is all a distraction to the topic. I don't think Woz should be the figurehead of Apple. He was a pioneer and a very influential guy, but his interest is in technology for the sake of technology and this is very different to Jobs - he has a bloody segway!

 

[Iphone3gs]

well Steve Wozniak did line up 1st at one of Apple stores to get Iphone 4s he got 2 even though he already had 2 delivered.

what do you think his upto?

 

[*LTD*]

well Steve Wozniak did line up 1st at one of Apple stores to get Iphone 4s he got 2 even though he already had 2 delivered.

what do you think his upto?

Buying an iPhone. If Apple is smart, they'll make sure that he isn't up to anything more than that, at least as it relates to Apple as a company who is *not* in search of an employee-in-absentia who hasn't been involved with them since 1987.

 

[Frazzle]

I think some people here are being a bit harsh on Woz. He's very much an engineer's engineer, and if he's not too busy joking around and playing pranks on people he could probably still be on a par with Apple's best or get there very quickly. The man is simply brilliant when it comes to electronics and as he writes in his own book iWoz, he admits that he very much lives inside his own head. He is not a businessman and he always hated that aspect of working life. He is a geek, plain and simple. A very likable one though.

To illustrate Wozniak's brilliance: just yesterday I spoke about Jobs and Woz with an engineer at one of Apple's suppliers. (Some of their stuff is in the iPhone.) He still remembers to this day the first time he saw the floppy disk controller of the Apple II. His whole team of engineers was absolutely amazed by the controller Woz had designed. At the time, a floppy controller (by Shugart) was a huge board with numerous chips. Woz boiled it down to an absolute minimum, because, as he writes in his book, 'that's something he likes to do'. The engineer told me that you could always recognize a board designed by Woz because of the sheer elegance of the design.

I am sure that at least part of the Apple culture of engineering excellence can be traced right back to Woz and his ideas about designing systems with as few chips as possible. And because Woz liked his designs to be elegant and the boards to 'look nice', I think it would even be fair to say that Apple's positioning as being on the crossroads of technology and liberal arts started with him and evolved from there to become the beautiful electronics in beautiful cases running beautiful software that we know today.

 

[*LTD*]

I will admit, though, that it might be good to have him on board as a consultant of some sort. There is no denying that he was instrumental in Apple's early success.

I'd be interested to hear what some of his current ideas are.

 

[zap2]

I'd be interested to hear what some of his current ideas are.

I think he'd want to make Apple's devices open for the user, at least based on an interview I recall reading. I think Woz is a smart engineer, but he isn't a business man, so I'm not eager to have him controlling where Apple will take iOS and it's hardware.