|
now you understand why equating him to Einstein is stupid
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Switzerland posted:Well, also Microsoft had a few more millions/billions to give. Remember also that Apple was, what, 60 days away from closing up shop (allegedly...) when Jobs returned. And apple continued to be "60 days from closing up shop" for the next like 6 years of his being there. Because you see, Steve Jobs actually wasn't very good at running a business. RandomPauI posted:Can we agree that Apple could have been more successful and could have operated better, but that it is very profitable and it's products are popular? Apple's products aren't popular in the way that actually counts: selling in large amounts. Their last dominant product, the iPod line, has effectively been dead for going on 5 years now with the market it was in. enraged_camel posted:Probably not. Lol what? Dude, the Apple I design loving sucked, have you ever even used one or more importantly one of the recreations (because there were only a few made)? The Apple I was on par with all the other crappy early microcomputer designs, and it was no great loss that it never sold well, and wouldn't have been sold by HP. Literally the only reason anyone cares about the Apple I today ist hat it was massively redesigned and improved to make the Apple II. Steve Jobs very specifically couldn't cure cancer, that's why he loving died like a chump because he believed in magic juice. He couldn't even make a dominant computing platform, much less cure cancer. enraged_camel posted:steve jobs is hitler now Well both Steve Jobs and Adolf Hitler died from a form of suicide, so sure let's go with that. The sooner the Steve Jobs nutriding cult dies off from internet culture the better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Steve Jobs was good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:15
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Steve Jobs was good. Counterpoint: Steve Jobs was actually bad.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Steve Jobs is the devil
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Steve Jobs was a guy named Steve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
The iPhone still sells a lot of units. The $700 juicer, theranos blood testers, and the all-in-on cooler/blender/Bluetooth speaker not so much. Edit: Just to be clear, the later is what the thread is focused on because they are products of companies that crashed and burned or that are on death's door. Because the products and companies offer no great utility in terms of practical use or convenient/portable conspicuous consumption. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Apple's products aren't popular in the way that actually counts: selling in large amounts. Their last dominant product, the iPod line, has effectively been dead for going on 5 years now with the market it was in. This is ridiculous. The way that actually counts from the perspective of a business being successful is returning a profit, and by that account Apple is wildly successful, considering they are the most valuable public company on the loving planet. Jobs was a dick, and I am not amazed by Apple's products, and the business success of Apple by no means excuses any of his personal flaws. But continually throwing in the additional horribly wrong argument that "oh also Apple isn't actually successful" is not helping you at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:The iPhone still sells a lot of units. Steve French posted:This is ridiculous. The way that actually counts from the perspective of a business being successful is returning a profit, and by that account Apple is wildly successful, considering they are the most valuable public company on the loving planet. No, it's not ridiculous. The stupid have a habit of grossly overestimating how popular Apple products are, that is why so many people are convinced that Steve Jobs needs to be respected. Also putative stock value has little bearing on how popular, good, or valuable any company's products actually are. You might as well claim Snapchat's business really is worth billions still since the stock still hasn't collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, it's not ridiculous. The stupid have a habit of grossly overestimating how popular Apple products are, that is why so many people are convinced that Steve Jobs needs to be respected. You're right that stock value has little bearing on the quality of a product, but the same can be said of market share. I'm not saying Apple's products are good, but you seem to be arguing that Apple isn't successful, which is horseshit. Your Snapchat analogy is also stupid: Apple has hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, they are an extremely valuable company by any measure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Under 20% of a 1.5 billion phones a year market is still hundreds of millions of phones. They could decline to 5% market share and it'd still be selling 75,000,000 phones a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Steve French posted:You're right that stock value has little bearing on the quality of a product, but the same can be said of market share. I'm not saying Apple's products are good, but you seem to be arguing that Apple isn't successful, which is horseshit. Your Snapchat analogy is also stupid: Apple has hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, they are an extremely valuable company by any measure. Market share is the truest test of the quality of a product. If it's truly high quality to the mass market, it should actually do well after years on offer. The iPod itself did that for example, later the iPad managed it for at least a year or two. Macs have never ever done that though. Being a valuable company doesn't make their products good though, so why do you keep bringing it up? You sound like the kind of person who brags about how much money Apple made in profit when they bought their latest iPhone (i.e. that they overpaid), frankly. And for that matter, Yahoo!'s corpse company owns a hefty chunk of Alibaba stock which is worth quite a lot. But does that actually make Yahoo's own possessions valuable? Of course not, Verizon was able to get all the stuff Yahoo had besides debt and Alibaba stock for just $4.5 billion. RandomPauI posted:Under 20% of a 1.5 billion phones a year market is still hundreds of millions of phones. They could decline to 5% market share and it'd still be selling 75,000,000 phones a year. Which again is peanuts in the market for iOS versus Android. Just like Apple selling a couple dozen million Macs a year isn't very impressive compared to the over 300 million Windows computers sold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Yes, we all know Samsung has the best phones
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
You can still be very profitable with a small market share in a big market. See the previous hypothetical where Apple only sells 75,000,000 phones a year instead of ~300,000,000 phones. You can argue that Apple could become completely irrelevant in a few years time, but that'd be armchair speculation. Edit: Please don't though, please just not reply and let the thread move on. I promise to unilaterally do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Apple can be very successful without necessarily having the biggest market share by targeting the overly style conscious phone hipster market, or the basic bitches emulating last year's hipsters market, and overpricing their phones as far as they can get away with. In fact, you can be a successful company with minimal market share, like rich people handbag companies that make you sign up for a 5 year waiting list before allowing you the privilege of buying a $100k leather bag that would normally cost $200.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:45
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
fishmech posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:You can still be very profitable with a small market share in a big market. See the previous hypothetical where Apple only sells 75,000,000 phones a year instead of ~300,000,000 phones. Doesn't matter, they're still not really selling much, and Apple's valuation is grossly over inflated still. Apple has been completely irrelevant for quite some time to the general population, but maybe in a few years the Steve RDF will wear off enough for internet nerds to see it? Arsenic Lupin posted:(stares sadly at the wrist marks left by the edges of her Macbook Pro clamshell ) But it looks so nice! Or kinda did, 10 years ago when they were first doing it. What's a flesh wound between friends? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Apple is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Steve Jobs is not in my top 10 list favorite Steves, he definitely is not, no siree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Market share is the truest test of the quality of a product. Comparing iOS and Android on market share is dumb as hell. The former comes bundled in its proprietary hardware. The latter is freely licensed to basically any mobile device manufacturer and ends up installed on low-end devices which have high-volume sales. When people are on the market for a smartphone, they don't say "I want to buy an iOS". They say "I want to buy an iPhone/iPad." Same thing with Mac vs. PC. Apple doesn't care very much about market share. They know that, at the end of the day, only one thing matters in capitalism, and that is profits. And Apple trumps its competitors by a large margin in that area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
man i haven't seen someone white knight Steve Jobs corpse in ages. it's kinda nostalgic
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Comparing iOS and Android on market share is dumb as hell. Not to a developer or a user, which is what matters. enraged_camel posted:
No they don't. Because Apple's market share is tiny in both the phone and tablet spaces these days. That's what you don't get because you're too busy jerking off about the guy who died of thinking juice cures cancer, when cancer cures Jobs. enraged_camel posted:Same thing with Mac vs. PC. Again, no, way fewer people buy Macs than buy PCs. They say they want a laptop, and then they buy a Windows laptop literally like 9 times out of 10. And they're close to buying Chromebooks more than Macs these days too. Apple only "doesn't care" about market share because they repeatedly fail to achieve it. They then backpedal to "oh we only really care about the profit ratio" once they fail to take over a market. They cared a lot about market share in the MP3 player market when they were like 80%-90% of the MP3 market, that's for drat sure. They cared about market share in movie production computers, before the movie production computer market decided to move over to Linux and Windows. And so on. And Steve Jobs specifically was always trying to try new things to owning other Apple products as an attempt to try to bring up market share in all sorts of markets. It rarely if ever worked of course. fishmech fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Not to a developer or a user, which is what matters. What an asinine assertion. I guess that's not surprising though since I'm arguing with fishmech. fishmech posted:Apple only "doesn't care" about market share because they repeatedly fail to achieve it. They then backpedal to "oh we only really care about the profit ratio" once they fail to take over a market. They cared a lot about market share in the MP3 player market when they were like 80%-90% of the MP3 market, that's for drat sure. They cared about market share in movie production computers, before the movie production computer market decided to move over to Linux and Windows. And so on. You either have high margins or you have a large market share. You can't have both. Apple can always slash their prices in half in order to undercut competitors and flood the market, but that's very obviously not their strategy. I mean look, Apple is the world's most valuable company today. You think that's because they are overvalued? Fine. They also have the largest cash reserves by far: quarter trillion and growing. So yeah. Clearly what they have been doing has been working very well for them. Internet shitlords loooove to claim that Apple stopped being relevant the day Jobs died, but numbers tell a totally different story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What an asinine assertion. I guess that's not surprising though since I'm arguing with fishmech. There's nothing asinine about the fact that it matters about 10,000x more that a platform is widely used than that it's directly profitable for someone who isn't you. Microsoft has very high margins and very high market share in multiple fields though? You literally don't know what you're talking about, you're just desperately trying to find a way to say "No, Steve Jobs was actually good, therefore everything Apple was good". Also Apple can't undercut their competitors and win - just look at how the market share has remained stagnant or shrunk even as they introduce newer ranges of products that usually sell to the consumer at $0 upfront. You know why they don't sell? Because the Android platform is so good and desired that Apple can't make penetration anymore. Just like cutting Mac prices severely wouldn't help, although over there it's because even at half off they're massively overpriced for the actual market. Being the most valued stock is completely meaningless - Exxon was the most valuable company for a while, did that make their gas stations better? Having huge cash reserves they don't use is also pretty meaningless for quality or popularity of the actual product. But again, you have to pretend like those correlate so you can pretend the guy who died of believing in juice cures was actually good. Apple stopped being relevant in nearly every market in the 80s, when it turned out the Mac had no hope to fight the PC clone steamroller. Apple lost their last shred of relevance when the mp3 player market died and they were no longer the leader in anything of note. So they basically lost even before Jobs got booted the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Apple is relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Steve Jobs is not in my top 10 list favorite Steves, he definitely is not, no siree. 10. Stevie Ray Vaughn 9. Steve McQueen 8. Steve, the type of aurora 7. Stevie Nicks 6. Stone Cold Steve Austin 5. Steve Carell 4. Steve Buscemi 3. Steve Rogers 2. Steve Wozniak 1. Steve Martin
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Okay okay Steve Jobs DID steal from Wozniak, but if it wasn't for Jobs, Woz wouldn't have done the work that was stolen from him soooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Did Jobs still own Pixar when he died?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Okay okay Steve Jobs DID steal from Wozniak, but if it wasn't for Jobs, Woz wouldn't have done the work that was stolen from him soooooooooo How does anyone know this? Wozniak was a member of the Homebrew Computer Club, it's conceivable he'd end up partnering with someone else there for a personal computer. He was getting frustrated with HP not listening to him about it, anyway. More on topicish: https://twitter.com/FinjanHoldings/status/879771324289134592 https://twitter.com/Chili_Philly/status/881502100836016128  Backup in case they disappear: 
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-90iRQbd0fg
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmyFIKpGaK4
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Did Jobs still own Pixar when he died? No. He sold it to Disney in 2006, 5 years before he died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Being the most successful company i.e. winning at capitalism is kind of like getting #1 at one of those singing contest TV shows. As in, good job. You're probably not a loving genius though, and if you had beat your wife or died from eating literally only fruit, then I'm going to laugh and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
People love to say Jobs rescued Woz from a corporate backwards pseudo-meritocracy where he would've been stifled, ignored, and ultimately discarded by history. But the same is true of Jobs. Right place and right time make or break a "genius"; being dumb and/or lazy are disqualifying factors but for every Jobs there were 99 other hard working smart people who narrowly missed getting their dick sucked by capitalism because they worked at JPL or the state department or taught poetry at NYU or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Zeris posted:People love to say Jobs rescued Woz from a corporate backwards pseudo-meritocracy where he would've been stifled, ignored, and ultimately discarded by history. But the same is true of Jobs. Right place and right time make or break a "genius"; being dumb and/or lazy are disqualifying factors but for every Jobs there were 99 other hard working smart people who narrowly missed getting their dick sucked by capitalism because they worked at JPL or the state department or taught poetry at NYU or something. look, i thin kyou really don't appreciate the degree to which the Just World Theory proves that my position in the world is fully deserved on account of my personal virtue,
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
I'm really not that impressed by Steve Jobs' contributions to the world as a whole but maybe that's just cuz I'm dumb. Some nifty products though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
divabot posted:look, i thin kyou really don't appreciate the degree to which the Just World Theory proves that my position in the world is fully deserved on account of my personal virtue,
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I've never seen anyone downplaying Jobs who has a coherent stance on innovation. Also market share obviously isn't the only/best metric of success unless we're supposed to accept that blockbuster movies are the pinnacle of film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
More on the 500 startups creeper dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
In other news, Israel's on the map, with literal internet of poo poo: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/882048308734283781
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 02:52
|
|