Good article Marcus,it never ceases to amaze me how "people" need to cling to a Hero. Jobs did his job but nothing more, his worshipers claimed he was the "second coming", no mention of the built in obsolescence that computers are invested with.

"One of Job's master coups, the retail arm of Apple, with its free classes, extended customer interactions, and general merry-go-round of hoopla, was intended to signal that Apple was not motivated by profit margins but by genuine humanitarian goodwill."

Yes a coup alright, few however ask questions about the poor chinese slave labourer's who work in giant warehouses constructing these soon to be redundant items, being paid slave like wages and as documented elsewhere, committing suicide at work due to the conditions, poor pay and terrible conditions. Think about that next time you consider purchasing any i-phone,pad,pod,nano etc etc!

No doubt Jobs had a certain business flair and a great marketing arm, but the reality is, he was a ruthless corporate head, driven by fame, fortune and everything that is wrong with our greed-centric world today.

I see little benefit in putting him on a pedestal. Let him rest in peace without pain and all the money that he worked so hard to acquire during a lifetime of slavery to the corporate greed model

No loss here.

Hey Geoff of Perth,

Your username suggests you dwell beyond Sydney but if you're interested in the topic, you might want to book a flight and book a ticket to this:

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/mike_daisey_2011.aspx

The cult mentality is fairly easy to explain. People are after
all social, tribal creatures who like to belong and feel warm and
fuzzy.

That is exploited by everyone from the Jehovas Witnesses to the
the local football team. Even the Greenies and vegetarians form
their own little tribes of "us" and "them". Many Apple fans were
much the same.

As to Jobs, I think its worth giving him credit where credit is due.
I think Geoff of Perth understands little about what drives people.
I don't think it was money that drove Jobs. The man after all bought
50 black turtlenecks at a time, so he didn't have to worry about what
to wear and could focus on his driving passion, ie great design.

For the very rich, money is simply a way of keeping score of how others value
what they are doing by voting with their wallets. In
the end, much of that money will land up being given to charity, as
we see with people like Gates and Buffet.Jobs was just a little more
private, about his private affairs.

Jobs took the trouble to understand things from the perspective
of the consumer, something often forgotten in industry, where many
managers are arrogant enough to think that people should buy whatever
they make.

He had the foresight to realise that a mouse and a windows kind of
userface had enormous potential, something which the inventors at
Xerox had overlooked. Gates simply copied Jobs and brought it down
to a price where it was affordable by everyone, the rest is history.

IMHO Jobs did his best work towards the end of his life. I had avoided
Apple products for years due to their high cost, but I did
buy an Ipad. I use that Ipad all the time and its gradually dawned on
me just how much thought has gone into it. Not just the product,
but the whole consumer solution, which is what I as a consumer want.

Steve's middle name should have been provides. Unlike some idiotic pop music merchants & actors & sport people.
He was no angel but at least he wasn't a moron like other wealthy characters.

I think Yabby and individual both hit the nail on the head. I didn't know Jobs, so I can't state with any authority what drove him. But it seems to me that he was driven more by a desire to produce the best than a desire to make the most money. He had ideas, he innovated and he brought those ideas into being. That's a step ahead of da Vinci, in my opinion.

Whether or not he produced the best products is a matter of debate. I've always sat on the PC side of the fence but, like Yabby, that has largely been a consequence of cost-effectiveness. But where would my PC be if Apple hadn't given Microsoft the idea of Windows? What sort of a grotesque laptop would I be typing on if Apple hadn't considered the idea that a functional computer can't be aesthetically pleasing as well?

My first iPod allowed me to carry my music (something I love dearly) with me everywhere I go, my iTunes account has allowed me to explore whole new realms of music legally and for little cost. My iPhone has reduced the bulk in my pockets: I used to take keys, wallet, phone and iPod with me almost everywhere, as well as a cycle computer when out riding; now it's just keys, wallet, iPhone.

Whether or not Jobs was the inventor or producer is irrelevant, in my opinion. He gave the means for these things to be created and (good on him) grew filthy rich and well-loved in the process. That other tech companies have imitated almost every innovation created under Jobs's guidance is a testament to his influence in our IT-driven society.

Marcus Costello,

Thanks for your take on Steve Jobs’.

I did not know that he existed, but days ago, in a Westfield Mall, getting out from a Dick Smith’s near desert store, I noted an impressively new Mac shop that offered an Apple machine together with a year, one to one, free tuition on how to work with it, and the service of transferring all data from a PC to a Mac.

Nothing unusual in a world of Business, thought me.

Then Yabby mentioned Charities and my mind moved from business to dirty business

Whether or not Jobs was the inventor or producer is irrelevant,
Otokonoko,
I tend to think that nowadays inventions aren't really inventions as such anymore. It's a LEGO of ideas continually building on the back of runaway technology. People like Steve Jobs have the nuance of realising potential for the benefit of so many. Because they make an absolute fortune as a result is resented by many who would like to but can't make such contribution.

I agree with you there, individual. Invention nowadays tends to be more about 'building a better mousetrap' than 'inventing a new mousetrap'. It's about finding better ways of doing things we already do. Obviously, that doesn't go for all inventions - I'm sure some wondrous things are being cooked up in brilliant minds all over the world. But in a practical, everyday sense, the 'new' things we see are usually little more than streamlined, more efficient versions of 'old' things.

Or combinations. When the iPhone first came out, I was a bit of a cynic. I doubted that Apple had what it took to enter the telecommunications industry, and I saw little point in combining two tiny things - the iPod and the phone. I was the same with camera phones - I didn't have the foresight to see a world in which we could take photos of things that amused us and share them with our friends instantly, without any cables or printing or scanning or anything like that. I'm clearly not a visionary. I saw these things in the same light as the LG internet fridge, which was laughable at the time. Of course, now that online groceries are a reality, the internet fridge doesn't seem so silly after all.

But, back to Jobs. I agree with your summation - that he had 'the nuance of realising potential for the benefit of so many'. Whether he realised that potential for altruistic or entirely self-serving means is irrelevant to me.