Bring4th

"According to Walter Isaacson's upcoming book Steve Jobs, the persnickety chief flipped his lid when HTC debuted its own Android device in January 2010 which sported features popularized by the iPhone. Jobs summarized the launch to Isaacson as 'grand theft.'

As a result, Jobs vowed revenge with the gusto of a Charles Bronson or Frank Castle.

'I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,' Jobs said. 'I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this.'"

http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/201...-to-crush/

Quote:Questioner:
Has the vibration of the photon increased in frequency already?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It is this influence which has begun to cause thoughts to become things. As an example you may observe the thoughts of anger becoming those cells of the physical bodily complex going out of control to become what you call the cancer.

"Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who passed away today at the age of 56, had a rare form of pancreatic cancer called pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer, which produces islet cell or neuroendocrine tumors."



What do you guys think?

Rest in peace, Steve. :idea:

There's a good chance that Job's unreleased anger issues caused him to manifest negativity from within, in the form of cancer. However, I wouldn't tie Android to the latest problem. Job's health issues have been ongoing for many, many years.

Interestingly, Jobs has also told Issacson that some of his best life experiences were when he took LSD. So it's possible that Jobs had exposure to some of the higher meanings of life, but chose to remain rooted in anger and competition due to his own inability to release the ego-mind.

Just throwing out some ideas, as I'm in no position to judge him... But at the same time, there's also no real way to know what caused any of his mounting health issues.

Steve

(10-25-2011, 12:19 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: [ -> ]"According to Walter Isaacson's upcoming book Steve Jobs, the persnickety chief flipped his lid when HTC debuted its own Android device in January 2010 which sported features popularized by the iPhone. Jobs summarized the launch to Isaacson as 'grand theft.'

As a result, Jobs vowed revenge with the gusto of a Charles Bronson or Frank Castle.

'I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,' Jobs said. 'I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this.'"

http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/201...-to-crush/

Quote:Questioner:
Has the vibration of the photon increased in frequency already?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It is this influence which has begun to cause thoughts to become things. As an example you may observe the thoughts of anger becoming those cells of the physical bodily complex going out of control to become what you call the cancer.

"Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who passed away today at the age of 56, had a rare form of pancreatic cancer called pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer, which produces islet cell or neuroendocrine tumors."



What do you guys think?

Rest in peace, Steve. :idea:

I would be skeptical that he were that angry over the Android. All of his products were copied, why get mad starting now? As an innovator, it would be expected, especially by Jobs. It may have been part of the issue, but I'd assume that we know little of his real personal life.

(10-25-2011, 12:19 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: [ -> ]What do you guys think?

Rest in peace, Steve. :idea:

he had negative controlling traits. he wanted to control. not only what his users did on their own devices they bought, but also technologies as well.

as of now, the lawyer army he probably effected with what you have quoted in your post, is arguing in european courts that apple holds the rights to what you can term 'shiny rounded metallic edges for electronic devices', barring samsung from selling better devices than apple for cheaper price.

he did a lot of marketing and advertising, leading to unpopular but previously invented innovations and inventions to get popular, but then he proceeded to claim them as his own and control them and prevent anyone from using the same.

he had done us much bad than he did good. his popularization of some tech items to mainstream public is grossly overshadowed by the fact that the closed, walled-in, controlling trend he set with apple has caused almost all major companies to take the same route in order to make more profit. and now the information technology, and naturally internet, its content creation and distribution is on a trend towards less pluralism, more control by few powerful corporations.

everyone from amazon to even google now wants to build walled gardens, sell devices locked in to those walled gardens (as much as they can get away with) and then control the production/distribution/sale of content in those gardens and cash-cow their customers.

in a way, the process of 'thoughts turning to things' seems to have worked in job's case.

but, who will undo the grand damage he did to people's freedom ?

Quote: [the] controlling trend he set with apple has caused almost all major companies to take the same route in order to make more profit.

I'm not sure I agree, here. If we are talking about the iPhone, Android is the only known smartphone competitor, and it is Open Source.

If you are talking about other Apple products like the iPad versus the Kindle or Nook, then there isn't really an argument that can be made, since most technology products have long kept proprietary elements tied to their products in order to maximize profits. The same goes with cellular phones. It is very rare to find one charger that will fit many phones. Each phone has its own proprietary connection. Why? Because part of the total profit for phones comes from the accessories, which companies rely on to help support their bottom line.

Same with content and the "walled up" hardware from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Apple, among others. These devices can read in content that has been converted into their proprietary formats to maximize their own profit.

Does it suck for the consumer? Sure! But is Apple responsible for setting such a trend? Absolutely not. It's been happening far longer than Apple has even been around.

Steve

(10-25-2011, 02:10 PM)Bring4th_Steve Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: [the] controlling trend he set with apple has caused almost all major companies to take the same route in order to make more profit.

I'm not sure I agree, here. If we are talking about the iPhone, Android is the only known smartphone competitor, and it is Open Source.

If you are talking about other Apple products like the iPad versus the Kindle or Nook, then there isn't really an argument that can be made, since most technology products have long kept proprietary elements tied to their products in order to maximize profits. The same goes with cellular phones. It is very rare to find one charger that will fit many phones. Each phone has its own proprietary connection. Why? Because part of the total profit for phones comes from the accessories, which companies rely on to help support their bottom line.

Same with content and the "walled up" hardware from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Apple, among others. These devices can read in content that has been converted into their proprietary formats to maximize their own profit.

everything apple. from itunes to phones being locked to hardware in apple computers being made extremely hard to replace, despite being comprised of common pc components, then sold to people from exorbitant prices, with the only difference in between a pc using similar parts and apple being the o/s.

Quote:Does it suck for the consumer? Sure! But is Apple responsible for setting such a trend? Absolutely not. It's been happening far longer than Apple has even been around.

Steve

not really. once, even apple itself was a rather open company, until jobs' second ascent to power there.

back in 1990s, information technology trend was all about openness and modification, and freedom of the user. thankfully, internet debuted in this period.

then ipod and itunes came, with it came drm, excessive profits, and many more. which prompted everyone to do the same, leading to the 'one galled warden to rule them all' approach with the advent of smartphones. now they are wanting to shove everything into one closed ecosystem and cash the cows in there, with cows being customers.

............

all of these, without even touching the patent/trademark/copyright dominance apple has attempted under jobs in last decade. to the point of claiming ownership to the letter i, in australia, to rounded shiny metal edges in europe.

i think Jobs did more good than harm, Unity. someone was gonna do it anyway. when the technology is out there it's up for grabs. he was controlling and angry but he was spiritual and passionate. his intentions were good. but he was human. often when a person is intense, and passionate, they are of course controlling and have anger problems. because they care more than others. that's what drives them. whether it's used for good or bad, Steve did more than his share of contributing to this planet. especially toward internet. would we have internet if he hadn't developed personal computers like he did? it was his passion that made it happen. and now we have revolutions taking place, politicians being exposed. all because of internet. all because of computers. a lot cuz of Steve. i hope he's in a good place now. i know what it's like to have anger issues and control issues. and to care more than anyone else about something. it's painful to care that much when others don't. it's not an excuse, but it's a reason. everyone has their reasons. and we the people have to take responsibility for what we do with the technology. it's a cop out to blame Steve.

(10-25-2011, 03:54 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]i think Jobs did more good than harm, Unity. someone was gonna do it anyway. when the technology is out there it's up for grabs.

it wasnt 'out there' for 'grabs'.

the technology was there, openly and widely available. if someone else had popularized the technology, s/he/they could have done it without setting a trend for selling overpriced items out of shiney factor to people and then milking them like cash cows in walled gardens. and presenting this as something good or revolutionary, while satisfying their investors to an extreme extent.

Quote:he was controlling and angry but he was spiritual and passionate. his intentions were good. but he was human. often when a person is intense, and passionate, they are of course controlling and have anger problems. because they care more than others. that's what drives them.

you are labeling someone who had walled-in people into a garden in order to make exorbitant profit over them at the cost of their freedom, 'spiritual and passionate' ?

its self serving as it can be. whether done consciously, or done unconsciously as a result of control freakdom or fixated opinions.

Quote:especially toward internet. would we have internet if he hadn't developed personal computers like he did? it was his passion that made it happen.

internet ? you are crediting development of internet, to steve jobs ?

are you kidding me ?

'if he hadnt developed personal computers like he did' ? are you aware that internet and personal computers were here long before his ascent into power second time ?

AND, actually steve wozniak was the person behind apple's initial computers which set the trend you are talking about 'like the way he did' ?

steve jobs has nothing to do with development of internet. even of today, leave aside past, apple computers constitute a little minority of devices that make up the internet, both server and consumer wise. it was even more so back in the 90s period that internet had come into being and spread around into what we know today.

'ibm personal computer compatibles' is the wordage you looking for. thats what had made i.t. revolution mainstream.

Quote:and now we have revolutions taking place, politicians being exposed. all because of internet. all because of computers. a lot cuz of Steve.

excuse me, but apart from your uninformed misconception, there is no relevance in between success of internet, and steve jobs.

Oye vey.

Can we not steamroll, please? Whether we are all correct or incorrect in some ways, it would behoove us to practice "grace" from time to time and to allow casual conversations to come and go for the sake of enjoyment, rather than constantly worrying that each post is going to be taken to the boxing ring for full and utter scrutiny!

Thank you,
Steve

(10-25-2011, 04:21 PM)Bring4th_Steve Wrote: [ -> ]Oye vey.

Can we not steamroll, please? Whether we are all correct or incorrect in some ways, it would behoove us to practice "grace" from time to time and to allow casual conversations to come and go for the sake of enjoyment, rather than constantly worrying that each post is going to be taken to the boxing ring for full and utter scrutiny!

Thank you,
Steve

my concern here is the truth.

earlier in this thread it was more a concern for the lost liberties and the disturbing trend. however after oceania's post, which went as far to idolize steve jobs and credit him with the spread of internet and even thanking him for revolutions in middle east or whatnot, now i have a totally different perspective.

it seems, a personality cult is at work here. leaving aside crediting the person who was responsible for harming freedoms on the internet (and even your own in-house device) to a great extent, with revolutions and freedom, when i look back at the technical side of things what i see is only form over content in what is being praised.

nothing steve jobs 'popularized' had not been available before jobs. all of them were there, and in abundance. there were very easy to use hardware and software too, even if not succeeded to be popular.

so, what's the difference here ? why has this person come to the point of being credited with something he had harmed more than any government ?

when i look into this i see valuing form over content. and nothing else. that was what made apple sell its products over its competitors, and develop a cult, die hard following which actually identified themselves with its products. DESPITE they are sold with common components from prices that are 3 to 4x of the normal, and then still limiting the freedoms of the user to force it to use apple's own amenities which were again overpriced.

so much that, some apple services were resorting to changing the screws on the serviced devices with proprietary screws which were very hard to open without getting the proprietary, publicly unavailable screwdrivers, so that apple device users would not go about fixing their devices themselves or through 3rd party services, at one point in time.

there is that much harm under the surface of this, and yet, people went to the point of being able to credit some person who had only nothing to do with the development of, but detriment of the internet ?

how ?

..............

the process here is not too dissimilar to what has transpired in the past of this planet before in similar occasions - from religions to nations.

this subject is much more deep and intricate than it seems on the surface.

ok, i will not get into a debate. if you disagree that's fine Unity. it's not like you're gonna change your mind due to what i say.

(10-25-2011, 05:21 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]ok, i will not get into a debate. if you disagree that's fine Unity. it's not like you're gonna change your mind due to what i say.

its not a 'disagreement'.

you are basically crediting someone who had no relevance to the things you are crediting him with. thats not an opinion, thats not a disagreement. you are just uninformed on this, and yet you have an opinion on this.

im not disagreeing with you on this. for there is nothing to disagree with.

Haha Unity you kill me! xD



Steve Jobs was a great man. Steve Wozniak is greater xD

(10-25-2011, 06:52 PM)Crown Wrote: [ -> ]Haha Unity you kill me! xD

It was a debate with Unity that did him in.
Trepidation is the emotion that stores in the pancreas.

(10-25-2011, 06:52 PM)Crown Wrote: [ -> ]Haha Unity you kill me! xD



Steve Jobs was a great man. Steve Wozniak is greater xD

And why any of this did not happen in a "garage" in Sudan? (yes, they have garages there too) Or Dominican Republic? For that matter, why Bill Gates was not Palestinian? Thinking like this can bring very deep connections to be made.

Moreover, when a "company" goes public. What does that mean? Who are then, the people with influence in the board meetings? How do they acquire the influence. Are those people tied up with the other few companies (and banks) ruling the market/money world?

if it were not because IBM chose bill gates company to power up pc's, how this bill gates phenomenon or steve jobs came to exist? Yeah, only in america isn't?

(10-25-2011, 08:23 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]Thinking like this can bring very deep connections to be made.

even spiritually deeper is the deification and exaggeration of that particular individual's persona.

from its death to this point everything seems to be inflated. he was a 'great tech guru' at the start, and as news channels kept giving obituaries it turned to 'genius', and then suddenly i see someone in a spiritual forum, thinking that we have internet in its great state and even the revolutions worldwide thanks to steve jobs.

(10-25-2011, 05:26 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]you are basically crediting someone who had no relevance to the things you are crediting him with. thats not an opinion, thats not a disagreement. you are just uninformed on this, and yet you have an opinion on this.

im not disagreeing with you on this. for there is nothing to disagree with.

This is true. In addition to Jobs not having anything to do with the internet's spread, Microsoft was originally thinking internet was a passing fad and decided not to invest anything in it. They had no idea.

(10-25-2011, 08:26 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2011, 08:23 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]Thinking like this can bring very deep connections to be made.

even spiritually deeper is the deification and exaggeration of that particular individual's persona.

from its death to this point everything seems to be inflated. he was a 'great tech guru' at the start, and as news channels kept giving obituaries it turned to 'genius', and then suddenly i see someone in a spiritual forum, thinking that we have internet in its great state and even the revolutions worldwide thanks to steve jobs.

It brings up the STS nature of the monetary and capitalist system. It is to be expected the exaltation of his persona. Even though those characters were "allowed" to make progress within this system. It does not only helps to justify it, but it buries the spiritual seeking deeper among the general "population".

(10-25-2011, 08:35 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]It brings up the STS nature of the monetary and capitalist system.

there is some effect from that part indeed.

all the news channels in usa were always talking about apple. apple this apple that, especially because it was a very good performer in nasdaq. despite there were many more tech companies which were more powerful and far-reaching and with bright futures, apple was always the focus in the last decade. revolving around the fact that it was paying quite good dividends to its shareholders.

steve jobs took already invented technologies, and presented them as if it was a new revelation and technology from apple. people bought it. and now they thing it was steve jobs who gave them those.

(10-25-2011, 08:39 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]....
steve jobs took already invented technologies, and presented them as if it was a new revelation and technology from apple. people bought it. and now they thing it was steve jobs who gave them those.

If I remember well, the mouse was an invention of Xerox but others say Doug Engelbart? macos ten kernel is freebsd, isn't?

(10-25-2011, 08:50 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2011, 08:39 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]....
steve jobs took already invented technologies, and presented them as if it was a new revelation and technology from apple. people bought it. and now they thing it was steve jobs who gave them those.

If I remember well, the mouse was an invention of Xerox but others say Doug Engelbart? macos ten kernel is freebsd, isn't?

should be xerox.

macos comes from mach, apparently which was designed for unix kernel replacement. and then various unix properties, and stuff from bsd.

(10-25-2011, 08:39 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2011, 08:35 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]It brings up the STS nature of the monetary and capitalist system.

there is some effect from that part indeed.

all the news channels in usa were always talking about apple. apple this apple that, especially because it was a very good performer in nasdaq. despite there were many more tech companies which were more powerful and far-reaching and with bright futures, apple was always the focus in the last decade. revolving around the fact that it was paying quite good dividends to its shareholders.

steve jobs took already invented technologies, and presented them as if it was a new revelation and technology from apple. people bought it. and now they thing it was steve jobs who gave them those.

So call him an artist then. Dang. :@

He made some really awesome s*** happen. Period.

(10-25-2011, 09:44 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2011, 08:39 PM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2011, 08:35 PM)apeiron Wrote: [ -> ]It brings up the STS nature of the monetary and capitalist system.

there is some effect from that part indeed.

all the news channels in usa were always talking about apple. apple this apple that, especially because it was a very good performer in nasdaq. despite there were many more tech companies which were more powerful and far-reaching and with bright futures, apple was always the focus in the last decade. revolving around the fact that it was paying quite good dividends to its shareholders.

steve jobs took already invented technologies, and presented them as if it was a new revelation and technology from apple. people bought it. and now they thing it was steve jobs who gave them those.

So call him an artist then. Dang. :@

He made some really awesome $hit happen. Period.

Yeah it's true people b**** a lot

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-iPod.html

oh Unity. i disagree again.

---

also, i never claimed he invented the mouse or whatnot. or credited him for inventing things he didn't create. i credited him for making the PC what it is. when the big computer comps didn't believe anyone regular had use for PCs, Steve did. he was a visionary. that's what i credit him with. but you assume things about people without asking. and then go on and tell them they are ignorant. i happen to know he stole a lot of his stuff, he was a pirate. Bill Gates stole from him. so what? the point is these men shaped the world. their presence, whether you agree with their ways or not, changed information sharing and people's access to technology.

(10-26-2011, 12:37 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]oh Unity. i disagree again.

---

also, i never claimed he invented the mouse or whatnot. or credited him for inventing things he didn't create. i credited him for making the PC what it is. when the big computer comps didn't believe anyone regular had use for PCs, Steve did. he was a visionary. that's what i credit him with. but you assume things about people without asking. and then go on and tell them they are ignorant. i happen to know he stole a lot of his stuff, he was a pirate. Bill Gates stole from him. so what? the point is these men shaped the world. their presence, whether you agree with their ways or not, changed information sharing and people's access to technology.

excuse me, there is no more polite way of putting this - you are wrong. you dont know enough on this matter.

what you speak of, was back in late 1970s. by the time steve jobs was kicked out of apple, and returned back, ibm personal compatibles were being sold to everyone. and even before that, there was zx spectrum, commodore 64, msx compatibles in almost every other home and kids were playing and programming. that includes me in 1986. steve jobs did not return to helm of apple until september 1997. i got my first pc in 1993 fall. it was a household item at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

he didnt change ANYthing about 'the way people share information' or any other nonsense. people were using the technologies he sold to the apple fans long before he sold them, and again, they werent even 10% of the market in any of those.

the most you can say is, he was a marketer. and he marketed his products to a very loyal audience, which still doesnt constitute more than at most 20% of the customers in the world.

this 'steve jobs is great, apple is cool' stuff is predominantly an indulgence of americans. outside america, people actually dont care about either, and most dont know who steve jobs is either.

i didn't say he invented facebook.

LMAO. Now it's about customer percentages.

(10-26-2011, 01:27 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]i didn't say he invented facebook.

you went staggeringly far. you told that he made pcs popular (despite mac had no relevance to pc at that point), he changed how people 'shared information' and many more.

Mac is a pc. and i meant without PC there would be no internet.

(10-26-2011, 02:29 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]Mac is a pc. and i meant without PC there would be no internet.

mac has not become a pc compatible before 2006. before that used powerpc architecture. only after 2006 macs have become based on intel architecture, and therefore can be called pc compatibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh

ibm pc compatible is a term that denotes the computer systems that are cloned from ibm's personal compatible model, and follow the same structure with them, parts being compatible with each other regardless of who produced them.

there is no relevance in between a mac before 2006 and these. and after 2006, a mac is just a pc with same innards and different o/s, just like any pc. even now, apple makes it so that it is rather impossible to replace any part from inside a mac, even though it uses the same common components with ibm pc compatibles. so that people wont get funny ideas about upgrading their computer instead of buying a higher and more expensive mac. so, you cannot still call them precisely 'pc compatible'.

..............

if, you are wanting to mean 'a computer people use at home to connect to internet', there has never been a point in time where anything sold by macintosh could be considered a noticeable portion of such units connecting to internet that they could be considered anything 'changing' the way people share information, leave aside 'drive' internet. even in usa.

even after the grand successes after job's ascent, and even in usa, where it is extremely popular, circa 2008 macs did not constitute even 9% of the computer market that you could attempt to name them as anything 'changing' the way people shared information or drive internet.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/10/16/m...et-tops-9/

even in 2011, after all that cult building, american news channel pompadouring, all the hype and buzz created over all apple products, apple's share has not been over 10% among computer units that are in use.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/appl...0-7-share/

90% of computers have been ibm personal computer compatibles that are NOT macs.