> Steve Jobs never really invented anything

Would we have the iPhone if Steve Jobs were never born?

I believe Steve Jobs hate the idea of turning the iPod into a phone. Rejected the idea from his smartest people for a long time.

Most likely yes, maybe even by a different company

Maybe it would have been called the mePhone

There were already smartphones like BlackBerry and Danger. None of them were "the iPhone".

No but someone else would have made it eventually. Maybe a little bit later. Tech does not happen in a vacuum, even in earlier centuries the same invention happened around the same time in different parts of the world.

Definitely. Connected palm pilots / PDAs existed for years before.

Apple invented the PDA (even the term) with the Newton in 1992. Steve wasn't with the company at the time, but given the company wouldn't have existed without him it isn't really that much of a stretch to say they wouldn't necessarily exist without his influence.

You seem to subscribe to the "great man" theory of history, while the people that disagree with you subscribe to a "human dynamics" theory of history (think Hari Sheldon's psychohistory in the Foundation books). You can point at some "great man" in history and say "if it wasn't for this person's actions history would have been different", but over long enough timelines I believe some things are inevitable, given the wider context in a point in time. If Columbus hadn't convinced the Spanish crown to seek new trade routes through the West, some other individual would have enticed another colonialist European power to so, with similar results for native Americans over the following century, for example.

> You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown. ... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.

— Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology

On the other hand you don't seem to know anything about Apple. It exists today because Jobs switched from very expensive beige boxes to affordable garish iMacs. Personally, that was unexpected. Then he bet on the iPod and the rest is history.

I don't like the cult of industrialists nor Apple really (I've always wanted a Quadra though), but he was one hell of a product manager.

According you Wikipedia, they started with Psion in the 80s

> The first PDA, the Organiser, was released in 1984 by Psion, followed by Psion's Series 3, in 1991. The latter began to resemble the more familiar PDA style, including a full keyboard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_digital_assistant

You’ve clearly never listened to Steve Jobs speak, or you didn’t understand what he was saying.

And it’s not just me. A lot of very respected smart people think he was way above them. That’s not a conman.

Also, conmen usually have an expiry date or they have to switch roles or disappear into new communities once they get found out. Same with psychopaths. They get found out and get rejected by society. That’s not what Steve Jobs did. He was respected to the end and built products to the end.

As a side note, I also think the obsession with UX and design in tech never would have occurred without jobs. The only reason we have fairly well designed apps and websites at this point is jobs’ influence.

Agree with you on conmen getting rooted out. I don’t think that holds for psychopaths or not nearly as much. They can cement themselves in positions of power.

You really should read The Greatest Hoax.

The Valley of Genius is another great book and doesn't hide much about Steve Jobs and his opportunism. That said, he sure knew how to raise money, build a team, and get attention.

Side note : Well designed apps and websites represents exactly what some of us probably find unusable, I often find myself constricted when I'm in front of a windows/mac machine, and everything I use on my computer, ( no trackpad, but a trackpoint, almost no design, a shell, a term, several virtual desktop, no wallpaper or picture, nothing else than text ) is exactly what Mac/windows people find unusable.

And, of course, the movie The Wolf of Wall Street is another good example -- it managed to con everybody into treating it like a good movie when it was ridiculous ahistorical junk that taught nothing, glorified crime, denigrated victims, and then was found to have been funded by grift (money siphoned from the Malaysan development fund 1MDB).

To this day, I use it as a litmus test -- if someone recommends a movie to me, I'll ask them what they thought of The Wolf of Wall Street. If they liked it, I will steer clear of any of their recommendations.

I enjoyed the movie but I also don't treat it like it's any kind of replication of reality. Like almost anything Hollywood puts out alongside the "based on actual events" clickbait.

The funding of the movie is also incredibly interesting, I think there was an episode of Netflix's Dirty Money based on that. Worth a watch.

(I upvoted original comment because it didn't deserve the very light grey text that it was)

I downvoted your comments because your comments trigger emotions, whereas good comments trigger curiosity. It sounds like you call everyone that liked that movie an idiot with no taste (I haven't seen the movie by the way). Now you even edited your second comment to say "Cowardly downvoters", which is a reason to flag it.

Thanks for the explanation; that's fair. I'm being polemic, probably too much so. My hatred for the movie is intense and it would be better communication if I could hide that.

I also downvoted, and it’s honestly because your point comes across as not understanding any of Martin Scorsese’s direction and body of work. Nearly all of his movies (primarily, mobster and crime related) are centered around characters and stories of wealth, excess, and the blatant flouting of rules and law in order to obtain power, followed by their near immediate downfall and loss of everything that truly matters. The Wolf of Wall Street, the movie, isn’t about the glorification of wealth: it’s about the vapidity and shallowness of that component of human nature and the ultimate self destruction and meaningless of life when it’s pursued. Someone can recommend that movie because they appreciate that moral and sentiment, not because they want to be a conman investment banker (or a gangster for that matter).

Maybe I should try some more Scorsese. Which movie do you recommend? I'll make an exception to my rule for the purpose of education :-)

If he was attempting to do what you describe with TWWS, I think he missed the mark. It seemed to express a a general nihilism rather than some message about how criminals ruin their own lives.

Things that would have made the movie better, in my eyes:

- At least one female character who was more than an object (Bechdel test was failed by a mile)

- Any scene with the perspective of any of the victims (the people whose lives Belfort destroyed are totally out of frame all movie)

- If Belfort's supposedly convincing / charismatic speeches were even slightly persuasive or entertaining (he did not sell me that pen at all)

- Less time wasted with blurry camera stumbling around on drugs

The funny thing is that I loved Catch Me if You Can when I first saw it and went to see TWWS hoping for more of that. So... maybe TWWS was more real. Crime does pay, and financial criminals are not geniuses, just bog-standard douchebags, and they get a slap on the wrist when they're caught and the world keeps spinning. Perhaps THAT is the message.

I'll also say that I didn't mean to imply they were idiots with no taste -- I meant that they are people whose cinema tastes are very different from mine. It's a shortcut for finding that out.

> Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to play the role.

this is an absurd suggestion. Steve Jobs has been a pioneer in making computing ubiquitous

pioneer != inventor

He’s listed as inventor on hundreds of patents. I think that qualifies.

Its not surprising that Jobs would be included on patents that were filed by people who worked for or with him. He was known to be mean and pushy and could easily force his name to be included.

Do we know of one thing that Jobs actually invented or co-invented, or was he always the marketer?

Hundreds of things. Peyton just told you that. But you like the idea of Jobs being a “conman” better than the truth so why disabuse you of the notion?

In case you’re wondering, filing a patent with an improperly listed inventor is fraud and invalidates the patent. Every patent app includes a signed oath and declaration by the inventors that they did indeed invent it.

The idea that Jobs didn’t have direct input on the functionality of novel features of Apple products is beyond absurd.

Aside from the fact that he was notoriously hands-on, Apple has been coasting on his achievements and direction for over a decade now.

Look at the post-Jobs Apple. It's just been step-wise refinement.

> He was known to be mean and pushy and could easily force his name to be included.

He was also very closely involved with every aspect of the products Apple was developing. Just watch any of his interviews. He knew all the details: technical, design, marketing.

So yeah, I'm not surprised he has his name on patents.

You can't force your name onto a patent, it's invalid if the inventor list is falsified.

That's not the point. You can contribute to an invention in a completely unimportant/replaceable way, and still be a contributing inventor.

If you’re going to make that distinction, shouldn’t you also cite quotations where Jobs makes the claim to specifically be the inventor? It seems the charge in this thread depends on blurring that boundary such that marketing on behalf of the company on stage and in interviews is equated with claims of being an inventor.

Nobody said he claimed he was an inventor. I think we all agree that he was a pioneer, but not an inventor.

Recap (paraphrased):

"Jobs never invented anything"

"He was a pioneer"

"pioneer != inventor"

"You have to show proof that he claimed he was an inventor!"

"Nobody said he claimed he was an inventor."

It was said above that he was “playing the role” of being an inventor, and this observation was directly juxtaposed against a con man.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I wouldn't accuse him of that.

I was taking the "reality distortion field" talk to refer to the cultlike status Job's fandom reached at its peak, where the "famous for being famous" effect came into play. I don't think he qualifies as a con man, and I don't think he claimed personal credit for the inventions of others (he never "took the initiative and invented the internet" like Al Gore).

> Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to play the role.

As far as I'm aware, Steve Jobs was, in fact, both the founder and former CEO of Apple. Unless he was pulling one HELLUVA ruse that I was unaware of.

My point is:

* He didn't create the Apple II, Wozniak did.

* He didn't create the mouse, GUI and Ethernet, the guys at Xerox's Palo Alto research centre did it.

* He didn't really create Pixar, bought it from George Lucas. His idea and project was to have the company to make and sell hardware for CG, because that was the only thing he had ever done at Apple & Next. The movie production was an offshot from the demos and the business of creating intros for television shows.

* He didn't create the iPhone. In fact Apple's engineers had to pressure him for years before he accepted. What got him accepting the idea was the fiasco on having iTunes into a Nokia phone.

* He didn't invent the Appstore. In fact he only accepted the idea of people making apps to the iPhone because 6 months after release the sales were collapsing.

Apple was and still is a very smart company. I concede that he was good at surrounding himself with smart people, and taking merit for what those people did.

There's a big difference between "this person was a con-man, never actually did any of the things they claimed, and was outright lying in order to present a marketable persona" and "this person is commonly given more credit in the creation of some things than they deserve, but they were closely involved with all those things, and were unquestionably a major figure in their field, regardless of the extra hype that has attached to them (even if they may have encouraged some of that extra hype)".

Steve Jobs was not a con-man. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he never claimed personal credit for the things you're saying he didn't do; those were things that were attributed to him by others.

Well, I think Diego’s point was that he knew how to create and utilise a powerful “reality distortion field” such that, without claiming direct creation over any of the vast classics that Apple created, he gained the status and fame of someone who seemed to have done so.

Trying to support someone’s point that’s literally unfounded seems odd in a discussion about “reality distortion fields.”

People also assumed Bill Gates created DOS because they are misinformed, no reality distortion field required.

Leaders lead talented people into a position where their talents have higher impact.

Create is a somewhat loaded term because no one person creates things of this scale. A better way of looking at it might be:

The Apple II would likely not have been successful without both Wozniak and Jobs.

Would the iPhone have come to fruition without Job's leadership, vision, and design + negotiation skills?

Not in the hands of Scully or Amelio.

Yeah, I think you have it.

Folks, especially humans for some reason, want to pin things on single individuals rather than groups. Even though our society and it's grand accomplishments are things that typically only groups can accomplish.

Even a person building "alone" is building something on the backs of those who came before them.

But that desire to name a single person as the "creator" leads to a lot of strife.

You missed the biggest one though - Apple, the company. Which was his creation.

I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, but recognizing a good idea even belatedly and green lighting it, not to mention selling it, is worth a lot.

And hiring people who can bring them to you is worth even more, especially if you're able to hear them when they keep insisting.

How do we even know it was belatedly?

Something a lot of engineers fail to realize is that a successful product is not just about technology, it is about timing, cost, ecosystem, market.

Who's to say Jobs didn't think the iPhone was not a good idea, but shouldn't be done earlier? The iPhone 10-15 years before the iPhone was the Newton.

I was thinking of the PARC demo, where he famously said, "my guys were bugging me to go see this."

Seems like another case of technology existing ahead of other conditions required to successfully bring it to market.

People use products, not abstract technology.

In everything I've seen, Jobs doesn't say things like "I created xxx," it always seems to be "We created xxx."

Without Jobs,

* Woz would have remained an obscure engineer working at HP

* Apple would never have happened

* The Mac would have never existed

* Pixar would have vanished without a trace

* Apple would have gone bankrupt in 1999

* OSX would never have existed

If Jobs didn’t return in 1996—

* Apple would still be wasting its time marketing 420 SKUs of beige Macintosh, along with its panoply of zero-value-add peripherals

* Apple would never have tried to make an iPod, which was, for Apple, an insanely out-of-left-field hobby project driven by Jobs

* Without the iPod, there would be no iTunes Store, which near-single-handedly pulled the music industry into its post-Napster era

* There would be no iPad, a project inspired by Jobs’ personal reaction to a dinner with Gates

* There would be no iPhone, a project spun off from iPad development and fast-tracked for earlier release

* If Apple ever did develop a phone or tablet, it probably would have been based on NewtonOS and fail to crack 1% market share

* Android would have stayed on course to be a competitor to the Blackberry

"I concede that he was good at surrounding himself with smart people"

Plus, he had to make the decision ultimately.

That's way way way way way way more important than I think most people realize.

The iPhone and the Apple Newton before it, was stuck with a stylus. Jobs wouldn't release an iPhone that relied upon a stylus.

Multi-touch displays was the key technology Steve Jobs needed to greenlight the iPhone.

Steve was completely invested in electing products that generated an experience the customer valued. This didn't always line up with the technical merits of the product. He subordinated the company to that goal, including holding releases back to hit a specific timing.

Steve said he did this strategy because he had the scar tissue to prove that making an amazing piece of tech and trying to market it, never worked for him.

He didn't create tech. He created relationships to the customer that made Apple billions.

I'd actually argue that the engineering is the easy part and doing everything else right, to keep the company going and engineers employed, is the hard part.

And I don't believe he ever claimed to have.

He was however the catalyst that allowed many smart and dedicated engineers to develop the things they did. Giving them drive and direction, money and resources to play with and develop the toys of their dreams. I love the folklore.org website that talks a lot about this.

This means he does not fit in your list of fraudster and hucksters.

As easy as it is to crap on Paris Hilton, given trauma she survived, I’m actually kinda impressed how well she did in her life.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/mar/18/they-st...

Read that interview yesterday… makes you think about her slightly differently than before

Does it though? Every single one of us have survived some life-changing childhood drama with varying degrees of severity, but not too many of us act out publicly because of it or ask to have cameras rolling when we do.

she did so well, leading a life of promotion of vanity and desolation, drug abuse and promiscuity. Should we thank her for her contribution to a hyper sexualised world as well ?

As easy as it is to disregard life choices because of trauma, I'm actually kinda unconvinced.

>Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to play the role.

You're of course getting engagement here. But the key difference is this: Abgnale outputted nothing.

Steve Jobs outputted Apple, Pixar and Next (basis of Macos and iOS).

You can quibble over what share of what credit for the specific products of each of those three companies. But there's no disputing Next wouldn't have existed without him, nor Apple, and Apple would have failed without him. Pixar had been declined by 45 other investors; only Jobs said yes. So it likely would not have got off the ground without him.

Everyone involved in the output of those companies speaks highly of him and ascribe him a vital role. Key competitors do the same.

Your argument amounts to say:

1. He had a well known reality distortion field

2. Therefore he accomplished nothing and everyone who was there on the ground is wrong, for they were subject to this field

3. All of the output of those companies happened, no thanks to Jobs.

Huh? What about his autobiography. Or the movie? I find the Argument that he never "outputted" anything extremely unconvincing.

I agree. Abagnale never outputted anything for the public, but he has outputted tremendous good for himself at the expense of others. Him and Jobs both achieved feats that no average man could have achieved.

He didn't write an autobiography. His biography had some glaring errors (people like Bill Gates are directly quoted as saying things with basic tech mistakes they couldn't have said) and of course he died before it was finished, so he couldn't have reviewed it.

Your reply seems to mistake the subject "he" for Jobs but in fact Abagnale is the subject there. G-GP suggests that (unlike Jobs) Abagnale output nothing and GP refutes that claim suggesting that Abagnale's autobiography and film are works that we can credit to him.

Thanks I wasnt getting it either

since when is a movie supposed to be accurate?

I don't see how that is relevant. Whether it's accurate or not doesn't matter for it be something of value.

Abgnale outputted a story. I’ll grant that.

Point of my comment is people also accuse Jobs of outputting only a story. But it’s ludicrous to believe all the rest of the stuff is just coincidence that happens to surround Jobs, again and again and again.

> Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to play the role.

Do you think orchestra directors or managers of sports teams contribute nothing to their team’s success?