# Should Steve Jobs be placed on the list of great inventors?



## Chris Blount

The other day I was watching a TV show that listed Steve Jobs as a great inventor along with Bell, Edison, Carver, Whitney and Ford. Link

Do you think Steve Jobs should be added to that list?


----------



## dpfaunts

Well on that top 10 list is the guy that invented basketball. Jobs was certainly a better inventor/patent holder than that guy.


----------



## sigma1914

dpfaunts said:


> Well on that top 10 list is the guy that invented basketball. Jobs was certainly a better inventor/patent holder than that guy.


Let's see you invent a sport that becomes immensely popular.


----------



## Steve

I agree with Darryle. Based on others on the list, I'd have to vote "yes". But I don't consider him as much a "hands-on" inventor as he is a visionary. I liken him more to Walt Disney than Thomas Edison, e.g.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Not Yet.

Most of the people on that list, it took a while to understand what they brougth to the table.

What did Steve Jobs invent? Directly... He brought Apple back from the brinks, to get it to the place it has today.

Apple as a company has built some amazing devices, and have changed a lot of things.
But did Steve himself build them? There is no doubt he had ideas and influence.

Time... Time will dictate what direct impact Steve the individual had.
There is no doubt, he is one of the great minds of the industry.... But was his positioning of the product, the marketting aspects that put the iPod above all other players... is that what started the trend? (as we all know the iPod wasn't the first mobile mp3 player).

Time... too soon...

And this isn't to say that he doesn't belong... eventually..
I just think we need to see what happens now... does the innovation continue? Does the dominance continue? Can all paths be traced back to Steve? (Or most paths)


----------



## dennisj00

I voted not sure. Steve really didn't invent anything. Even the Apple 1 that he and Woz built and marketed, wasn't an 'invention' - several other micros were developed and marketed in that time frame. Their's just led down the trail to bigger things.

However, he did have a major effect on several technologies: printing, music, software sales, cellphones. . . 

While Guttenberg is credited with inventing the printing press (movable type), Jobs exploded the printing market with fonts and computer graphics.

He did the same with music - Sony had both the players and music content but they couldn't do what Jobs did to revolutionize the music market and the way we buy and listen to music today.


----------



## samrs

Chris Blount said:


> Do you think Steve Jobs should be added to that list?


When all of Steve Jobs current fan boys/haters have passed I think historians should take a look at voting him into the Hall of Fame.

I voted not sure. I dont use any of his products.

You left Guttenberg off your list.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not Yet.
> 
> Most of the people on that list, it took a while to understand what they brougth to the table.
> 
> What did Steve Jobs invent? Directly... He brought Apple back from the brinks, to get it to the place it has today.
> 
> Apple as a company has built some amazing devices, and have changed a lot of things.
> But did Steve himself build them? There is no doubt he had ideas and influence.
> 
> Time... Time will dictate what direct impact Steve the individual had.
> There is no doubt, he is one of the great minds of the industry.... But was his positioning of the product, the marketting aspects that put the iPod above all other players... is that what started the trend? (as we all know the iPod wasn't the first mobile mp3 player).
> 
> Time... too soon...
> 
> And this isn't to say that he doesn't belong... eventually..
> I just think we need to see what happens now... does the innovation continue? Does the dominance continue? Can all paths be traced back to Steve? (Or most paths)


I was curious as to how to vote... then I read the above and it was clear.

I voted "Not Sure."

~Alan


----------



## harsh

What Jobs "invented" was a new school of marketing hype based on convincing people who didn't need something that they couldn't imagine life without it.


----------



## dpfaunts

sigma1914 said:


> Let's see you invent a sport that becomes immensely popular.


Someone else did... They call it facebook and twitter, the great sports of this century :grin:


----------



## sigma1914

dpfaunts said:


> Someone else did... They call it facebook and twitter, the great sports of this century :grin:


:lol: True.


----------



## dennisj00

dpfaunts said:


> Someone else did... They call it facebook and twitter, the great sports of this century :grin:


Since there's no physical interaction, I'm not sure I'd call them sports.


----------



## yosoyellobo

The question I ask myself was how I would have voted when I was in the fifth grade. Voted no.


----------



## Drew2k

Steve said:


> [...] But I don't consider him as much a "hands-on" inventor as he is a visionary. I liken him more to Walt Disney than Thomas Edison, e.g.


I agree with the above. Jobs and Woz invented the Apple "pc" in their garage, and that started it all, but when it comes to the later products, isn't it more that he managed many individual projects really well, by assembling teams of creative thinkers, design specialists, etc., and collaboratively the Apple company invented the great devices so many people call revolutionary today?


----------



## Drew2k

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not Yet.
> 
> Most of the people on that list, it took a while to understand what they brougth to the table.
> 
> What did Steve Jobs invent? Directly... He brought Apple back from the brinks, to get it to the place it has today.
> 
> Apple as a company has built some amazing devices, and have changed a lot of things.
> But did Steve himself build them? There is no doubt he had ideas and influence.
> 
> Time... Time will dictate what direct impact Steve the individual had.
> There is no doubt, he is one of the great minds of the industry.... But was his positioning of the product, the marketting aspects that put the iPod above all other players... is that what started the trend? (as we all know the iPod wasn't the first mobile mp3 player).
> 
> Time... too soon...
> 
> And this isn't to say that he doesn't belong... eventually..
> I just think we need to see what happens now... does the innovation continue? Does the dominance continue? Can all paths be traced back to Steve? (Or most paths)


OK, I should have continued reading past Steve's post (our Steve! ) before replying but agree with Earl as well. Take his last sentence... does everything trace back to Steve and Woz in the garage? If so, then you have to credit Steve AND Woz as the great inventors, right?


----------



## dpeters11

Overall an interesting list. I honestly am not a big fan of Edison, most of what he invented was actually invented by someone else in his lab. Tough he certainly did some major things himself.

I don't think I'd put Jobs on the list, but would add Tesla.


----------



## P Smith

Nope. 100% He was not an inventor.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I'm not really sure. Did he invent anything or was he the guiding hand. 

Thomas Edison was an inventor. Does Steve Jobs fit that definition of an inventor? 

Honestly. I don't know if Steve Jobs has any inventions to his name. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## dpeters11

He has his name on quite a few, everything from a lanyard to a staircase design. He undoubtedly was involved in their development, question is how much?


----------



## phat78boy

I'm not sure how someone who didn't invent something can be on a list of all time inventors? He was a great marketer and CEO, but nothing he Apple has released is evolutionary. Every single product that was released was already in the world before Apple released it. 

Apple reminds me of those BASF commercials: We don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better.


----------



## MysteryMan

Mike Bertelson said:


> I'm not really sure. Did he invent anything or was he the guiding hand.
> 
> Thomas Edison was an inventor. Does Steve Jobs fit that definition of an inventor?
> 
> Honestly. I don't know if Steve Jobs has any inventions to his name. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Steve Jobs Inventions......Apple III (1980)......iMac G3 (1998)......USB Mouse (1998)......Power Mac G3 (1999)......iPod (2001)......iMac G4 (2002)......iPod GUI (2003)......San Francisco Apple Store (2004)......Power Adapter (2006)......iPhone OS/iOS (2006)......Magic Mouse (2009)......iPod Shuffle (2010)......iPhone 4 (2010)......iPad (2010).


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dpeters11 said:


> He has his name on quite a few, everything from a lanyard to a staircase design. He undoubtedly was involved in their development, question is how much?


Is a unique design for a staircase count as an invention?

He was an innovator and a visionary. He saw the utility of emerging technologies that others failed to see. He understood how people interact with technology in ways that were completely lost on other people.

I guess whether or not he makes the list would depend on how you define an invention/inventor.

Mike


----------



## phat78boy

MysteryMan said:


> Steve Jobs Inventions......Apple III (1980)......iMac G3 (1998)......USB Mouse (1998)......Power Mac G3 (1999)......iPod (2001)......iMac G4 (2002)......iPod GUI (2003)......San Francisco Apple Store (2004)......Power Adapter (2006)......iPhone OS/iOS (2006)......Magic Mouse (2009)......iPod Shuffle (2010)......iPhone 4 (2010)......iPad (2010).


Above is my exact problem with calling him an Inventory. All the times above are just re-imagined versions of items already on the market. While many defined their market, none of them was first out of the gate or vastly different in terms of specs then other comparable items.


----------



## MysteryMan

phat78boy said:


> Above is my exact problem with calling him an Inventory. All the times above are just re-imagined versions of items already on the market. While many defined their market, none of them was first out of the gate or vastly different in terms of specs then other comparable items.


What I listed are items he filed for patents. He is credited for co-inventing 241 other items.


----------



## dpeters11

They may not have invented the smartphone, but certainly reinvented it, especially with iOS 2.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> Steve Jobs Inventions......Apple III (1980)......iMac G3 (1998)......USB Mouse (1998)......Power Mac G3 (1999)......iPod (2001)......iMac G4 (2002)......iPod GUI (2003)......San Francisco Apple Store (2004)......Power Adapter (2006)......iPhone OS/iOS (2006)......Magic Mouse (2009)......iPod Shuffle (2010)......iPhone 4 (2010)......iPad (2010).


I don't mean to be contrary but it seems that everything on that list is merely a version of something already invented by someone else. For instance, if you give Steve Jobs credit as the inventor of the USB Mouse does that mean every version of the mouse since Douglas Engelbart's days is a new invention? Or, even Tom Cranston's days for that matter.

Mike


----------



## phat78boy

I understand he is on a bunch of patents as the inventor, but if you really look at them they are not what I would define as inventions. Just for example, he has dozens of patents for "inventing" movable displays. Thats great and all, but is that really revolutionary?


----------



## phat78boy

dpeters11 said:


> They may not have invented the smartphone, but certainly reinvented it, especially with iOS 2.


Really? What did iOS 2 do that Windows Mobile didn't do several years earlier? Did it do it better? Sure, you could say that. But as far as doing something new, not really.


----------



## MysteryMan

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't mean to be contrary but it seems that everything on that list is merely a version of something already invented by someone else. For instance, if you give Steve Jobs credit as the inventor of the USB Mouse does that mean every version of the mouse since Douglas Engelbart's days is a new invention? Or, even Tom Cranston's days for that matter.
> 
> Mike


I know your not Mike. I was just answering your question as whether he invented anything. He is given credit for inventing the items I listed and held the patents for them. Take it from there.


----------



## dpeters11

The problem is its true of a lot of inventions. Edison didn't invent the first electric bulb for example. But how many have heard of Joseph Swan?


----------



## phat78boy

dpeters11 said:


> The problem is its true of a lot of inventions. Edison didn't invent the first electric bulb for example. But how many have heard of Joseph Swan?


I don't believe this to be a good example because of the era. Edison didn't have a working copy of Swan's to pick apart and see how to make it better. They both worked on their own project without any working models already in the world and both finished at relatively the same time.

Steve's inventions were much the opposite in that he had working products in front of him and designed them for ease of use. His products did the same thing every other one did, just in a more user friendly way.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> I know your not Mike. I was just answering your question as whether he invented anything. He is given credit for inventing the items I listed and held the patents for them. Take it from there.


Holding patents for something doesn't mean you invented it.

Hypothetically, if you were to reshape the case for a tape measure, put the lock button in a different place so it's operated by your palm instead of a finger, and added some non-slip rubber coating in strategic locations...well then you too can get a patent.

The new tape measure case just might be unique enough from other versions qualify for a patent. Is that an invention?

Mike


----------



## sigma1914

dpeters11 said:


> The problem is its true of a lot of inventions. Edison didn't invent the first electric bulb for example. But how many have heard of Joseph Swan?


Exactly and then Lewis Howard Latimer, a member of Edison's research team, improved the light bulb by inventing a carbon filament & patented it in 1881.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dpeters11 said:


> The problem is its true of a lot of inventions. Edison didn't invent the first electric bulb for example. But how many have heard of Joseph Swan?


I've heard of Swan. 

However, Edison and Swan reached their light bulbs nearly concurrently but on opposite sides of the Atlantic so it isn't as if Edison built upon Swan's work.

BTW, there were a dozen or more inventors who had incandescent bulbs prior to both Edison and Swan. 

Mike


----------



## Nick

There is nothing new under the sun. Everything is just an improvement, modification or variation of something that already exists.


----------



## MysteryMan

Mike Bertelson said:


> Holding patents for something doesn't mean you invented it.
> 
> Hypothetically, if you were to reshape the case for a tape measure, put the lock button in a different place so it's operated by your palm instead of a finger, and added some non-slip rubber coating in strategic locations...well then you too can get a patent.
> 
> The new tape measure case just might be unique enough from other versions qualify for a patent. Is that an invention?
> 
> Mike


I agree but he is credited for inventing the items I listed.


----------



## Chris Blount

phat78boy said:


> Above is my exact problem with calling him an Inventory. All the times above are just re-imagined versions of items already on the market. While many defined their market, none of them was first out of the gate or vastly different in terms of specs then other comparable items.


 So Henry Ford was not an inventor? He took the idea of an automobile and made it affordable.


----------



## phat78boy

Chris Blount said:


> So Henry Ford was not an inventor? He took the idea of an automobile and made it affordable.


I would consider him an inventor, but more for a process then a product. He revolutionized an assembly process that is still in use today.


----------



## TBlazer07

No, he didn't "invent" anything. He was great at many things. Maybe one of the worlds 10 best marketers, or 10 best "visionaries" or maybe even one of the 10 best snake-oil salesmen, but definitely not an "inventor." Edison was an inventor. Michaelangelo was an inventor. Even Ron Popeil was an inventor (how could you possibly live without the Chop-o-matic or veg-o-matic or the Pocket fisherman!).


----------



## TBlazer07

MysteryMan said:


> Steve Jobs Inventions......Apple III (1980)......iMac G3 (1998)......USB Mouse (1998)......Power Mac G3 (1999)......iPod (2001)......iMac G4 (2002)......iPod GUI (2003)......San Francisco Apple Store (2004)......Power Adapter (2006)......iPhone OS/iOS (2006)......Magic Mouse (2009)......iPod Shuffle (2010)......iPhone 4 (2010)......iPad (2010).


 None of those are "inventions." He may have designed them (and even that he wasn't 100% responsible for) and marketed them but certainly not "invented" them.


----------



## phat78boy

Nick said:


> There is nothing new under the sun. Everything is just an improvement, modification or variation of something that already exists.


I agree to a point. When the item you invent or reintroduce revolutionizes the product before it, that is an invention in my eyes.

Prop planes were around long before jets, but jets I would say were an invention because of how they changed the world. They provided such a huge leap in flying that the previous method seemed irrelevant.


----------



## TBlazer07

Chris Blount said:


> So Henry Ford was not an inventor? He took the idea of an automobile and made it affordable.


 I don't think improving a manufacturing process is "inventing" although technically I guess he "invented" some of the parts of that process. I think most people think of the term "inventing" to mean create a item that has never been seen before like Ron Popeil's Salad Shooter. There was never anything even similar to that.



Nick said:


> There is nothing new under the sun. Everything is just an improvement, modification or variation of something that already exists.


I agree with you but looking at the definition of an INVENTION I guess he (Jobs) technically could be considered and "inventor:"

in·ven·tion
   [in-ven-shuhn] 
noun
1.
the act of inventing.
2.
U.S. Patent Law . a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> The question I ask myself was how I would have voted when I was in the fifth grade. Voted no.


Could you elaborate a touch on your thought process here?


----------



## Laxguy

Mike Bertelson said:


> He was an innovator and a visionary. He saw the utility of emerging technologies that others failed to see. He understood how people interact with technology in ways that were completely lost on other people.
> 
> I guess whether or not he makes the list would depend on how you define an invention/inventor.


Bingo! If you expand the definition of invention from merely physical entities, then he is right there with the top ten. Even if all he did was invent a way to make a tablet a useful and sought after concept, he'd be notable, though not necessarily in the top ten.


----------



## Sixto

Without him, the cool stuff may not have happened.

For that, I give him a yes.

With the way most CEOs run businesses today (Wall Street), I wish he was still here for another 10-20 years.


----------



## P Smith

He shouldn't be in the list, if it happen - the list will lost its value.

Each boss whom his employees getting patents has his name on many of these. Some including his name while it was with very minimal involvement. Seen that personally in real life many times in many places.


----------



## phrelin

First of all, the web site linked reads as follows(*emphasis* added):


> The top ten *most popular* inventors. The following popular inventors *were determined by reader usage and research demand*.


I'm still in the "not sure" column about Job's in the future even from that perspective.

Frankly, I don't think of this guy as a "great" inventor:


> Henry Ford improved the "assembly line" for automobile manufacturing, received a patent for a transmission mechanism, and popularized the gas-powered car with the Model-T.


But since he's there Job's might be 60 years from now.

Even holding a patent doesn't make you a "great" inventor which is the title of this thread.

There is a Timeline of historic inventions in Wikipedia. Also we have to be careful of facts. The article at the link in the OP was accurate when it said about Edison:


> The first great invention developed by Thomas Edison was the tin foil phonograph. A prolific producer, Edison is also know for his work with lightbulbs, electricity, film and audio devices, and much more.


It's always seemed weird to me how many American kids think Edison invented the first lightbulb. It was first invented by Sir Joseph Wilson Swan.

The thing about Job's is that there are a lot of people who erroneously believe Apple created GUI-windows-based computing.

Popularity is a bad way to establish who is a "great" inventor. It's a great way to establish who is a "celebrity" in whatever classification you might want to rank people.


----------



## P Smith

Put him on a list of great managers or CEO ...


----------



## phrelin

Stanley Cohen, Paul Berg and Herbert Boyer likely will be the most Important inventors of the second half of the 20th Century. If you know why I assert this then you know why I consider Steve Jobs not very important in the category "inventors".


----------



## brian188

I fall in the "To soon to tell" category. 

Right now, the i-phone, i-Pad, etc. are great devices that many, many people use daily. And undoubtedly made their mark on the world. 10 years from now will that be the case? 20 years? 30 years?

So, regardless of weather you credit Steve Jobs as the "inventor" of these devices, a visionary, or and improver of an existing device you can't at this point lump him with the likes of Ford when it comes to his "invention(s)." 

I'm willing to bet the next great thing to replace the i-Pad is right around the corner, and the device to replace that device is getting closer by the day. In 10, 20, or 30 years will we be laughing at how archaic the i-Pad is as we do of the VCR or portable CD player today?


----------



## MysteryMan

TBlazer07 said:


> None of those are "inventions." He may have designed them (and even that he wasn't 100% responsible for) and marketed them but certainly not "invented" them.


I stated in post #36 he is "credited" for inventing them.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> I stated in post #36 he is "credited" for inventing them.


Credited by whom?

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07

MysteryMan said:


> I stated in post #36 he is "credited" for inventing them.





Mike Bertelson said:


> Credited by whom?
> 
> Mike


 His creditors of course!


----------



## dpeters11

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> Credited by whom?
> 
> Mike


By the USPTO

One example:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D469109

A larger list:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dpeters11 said:


> By the USPTO
> 
> One example:
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D469109
> 
> A larger list:
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html


 Those are patents he's named on and as I posted above, you can patented a tape measure with a redesigned case. It doesn't mean you invented the tape measure.

There are twelve people named as Inventors on that patent which took an existing technology and put it in a smaller case. Now the software/firmware that makes it all work is definitely new. I'm not a fan of iTunes (which I only use for our iPhone) but it coupled with the firmware on the device (iPod) is certainly new and innovative.

However, since there are twelve people names on that patent, is Steve Jobs the inventor of the iPod? Couldn't the same be said about the other eleven? How would someone feel if they were one of the other eleven but he's known as the inventor of the iPod?

Does being named on a patent mean that person has invented something even if it already existed?

Is re-purposing existing technology an invention or an innovation?

Is it fair for a single person to be credited as the inventor of every patent that contains that persons name when there are also others named on the patent? How do we decide who gets the credit?

Additionally, the way things work these days in large corporate R&D there are very few, if any, patents with just a single inventor named. In the corporate environment teams invent things; rarely an individual. That has to figure into this somehow but I certainly don't have a clue how.

Further, most inventions usually have a basis in previous work...someone else's work. The guy who actually makes it useful and/or commercially viable is the one who usually gets the credit. One could argue that digital music players, PCs, cell phones, etc. were already commercially viable devices so does one getting patents in these areas make one the inventor of these technologies?

He was a visionary but I'm unsure whether or not he was an inventor. If we consider him an inventor where does he rate when compared with Edison or da Vinci?

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Mike Bertelson said:


> Those are patents he's named on and as I posted above, you can patented a tape measure with a redesigned case. It doesn't mean you invented the tape measure.


Exactly.

Patents have been approved for some of the lamest things...including rounded corners on devices for example. Try enforcing that one.

I'd put Mr. Jobs in the category of *master re-packager *and *super-marketer*, not an inventor.


----------



## dpeters11

If you can't patent that sort of thing, what would you put it under, a trademark?

They have to have design protection somehow.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dpeters11 said:


> If you can't patent *that sort of thing*, what would you put it under, a trademark?
> 
> They have to have design protection somehow.


Rounded corners....really?

I think a caveman may own that one already.


----------



## dpeters11

Not saying rounded corners specifically and without restriction. But if someone came out with a competing device that looked exactly like an iPhone 4S body, just based on the design, there should be some protections preventing that.

Situations like Monster suing Blue Jeans because their cables had similar design elements dictated by necessity, no.

But if the patent system allows for it, is it wiser to apply for the patent or not? I think it's better to go for the patent. The system is breaking down, but companies have to work with the system as it is, not how it should be changed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dpeters11 said:


> Not saying rounded corners specifically and without restriction. But if someone came out with a competing device that looked exactly like an iPhone 4S body, just based on the design, there should be some protections preventing that.
> 
> Situations like Monster suing Blue Jeans because their cables had similar design elements dictated by necessity, no.
> 
> But if the patent system allows for it, is it wiser to apply for the patent or not? I think it's better to go for the patent. *The system is breaking down, but companies have to work with the system as it is, not how it should be changed*.


Agree.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> Could you elaborate a touch on your thought process here?


If you had ask me back in the fifth grade who was an inventor I would have said Thomas Edison. I guess I still believe that.


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> If you had ask me back in the fifth grade who was an inventor I would have said Thomas Edison. I guess I still believe that.


I agree with that part, but Jobs wasn't around when you were in Fifth Grade....


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> I agree with that part, but Jobs wasn't around when you were in Fifth Grade....


Unfortunately I still think like a fifth grader


----------



## Sixto

Not sure which I'd put at the top of the list ...

14 Best Inventions of Steve Jobs:"Steve Jobs may just be the greatest inventor of our age. We dug through Google Patents and found that Steve Jobs is listed as the primary or co-inventor on 241 patents. Granted, some of those inventions were duds, no doubt. But some were pure genius, and did nothing less than completely change the way we use technology in our lives ..."

http://www.maclife.com/article/gallery/14_best_inventions_steve_jobs​
Steve Jobs, 1955-2011: Inventor And Artist:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-obituary_n_997492.html​
Steve Jobs, Inventor: His Top 5 Patents:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391798,00.asp​
President Barack Obama 10/5/2011:"And there may be no greater tribute to Steve's success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented."​


----------



## P Smith

Sixto, you do relay to opinion of other people, who could be biased... I would use own judgement.


----------



## Sixto

P Smith said:


> Sixto, you do relay to opinion of other people, who could be biased... I would use own judgement.


To me, you can be literal, or to the spirit of the discussion. Seems like he had a major impact on the products, the ecosystem, the unique retail change, and it may not all happen without him.

If you read any of the books on the inner workings of the company, he had a major influence, sometimes down to the color of an icon. Truly, a very different CEO.

Whether you like him, or hate him, he got creative stuff done and changed the world.


----------



## P Smith

I'm try to be objective ...

Known personally (during some period of work) Jon Rubinstein and other Apple's employee (engineers), I got some spirit of Apple type management (for good) and what means invention for managers of higher level.

Coming down to icons and shape of product could be inventive, for sure, but it matter of design, not great inventor's list. Jobs was good in some aspects, no doubt, but some ... the obscuring HW and SW politics is not best choice for customers ... Stylish design of Apple products always been strong line of the company and it done by its engineers with great influence and directing from heads of the company.


----------



## phat78boy

Sixto said:


> To me, you can be literal, or to the spirit of the discussion. Seems like he had a major impact on the products, the ecosystem, the unique retail change, and it may not all happen without him.
> 
> If you read any of the books on the inner workings of the company, he had a major influence, sometimes down to the color of an icon. Truly, a very different CEO.
> 
> Whether you like him, or hate him, he got creative stuff done and changed the world.


You are absolutely correct, maybe the term artist would better describe the impact he had on our society. I just can't see calling someone an inventor who didn't really invent anything other then a new way to do something already being done.


----------



## Sixto

Yep, it's all a matter of opinion, as most things, there's no correct answer.

In the past, I've not had much experience with Apple products other then the iPod, and even that was once in a while. 

Since the iPhone, the iPad, and more recently an Apple TV purchase, I've grown a great appreciation for what they've done, which has led to me to read every book on the subject to understand the inner workings of the company as best that I could. Both to understand how and who created this stuff, but also to possibly learn something about best practices if you're looking to change the world in any particular area.

One of the major themes has been the focus on details and simplicity.

It's certainly obvious that Jobs' had a huge influence, and most everything developed was developed with the concept of "what would Steve think?". And then he'd steered them one way or another.

Whether he's considered an "inventor" is just a word game, the guy made stuff happen, and has changed the world, at least for now.

Only time will tell how long it lasts, but in the meantime I'm enjoying every announcement and product release, along with the rest of my family. Wife, kids, parents, siblings ... all have been switching over time.


----------



## FHSPSU67

Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates can be considered "inventors".


----------



## Steve

P Smith said:


> Put him on a list of great managers or CEO ...


For sure. (Tim Cook as well.) If you view the attached, keep in mind when Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy.

*EDITED TO ADD:* If it's difficult to see the graphic, *here's* the original article it accompanied.


----------



## Cholly

Not an inventor per se. An innovator, yes. An idea person, definitely.A superb marketer, beyond a doubt. But do those qualities define him as an inventor? I think not.
He and Woz cobbled together a bunch of hardware that became the Apple computer, but he did not invent a computer. Nor did he invent the mouse, the cellular phone, computer operating system or the myriad of other products he brought to market.


----------



## billsharpe

I'd rather vote "not yet" but that's not a choice on the menu, so I would have to go with "not sure" as closer to yes or no choices.


----------



## phrelin

One of the things you have to ask yourself, what if they had not brought Jobs back and Apple had gone bankrupt? How would mankind be worse off today?

I have mixed feelings about those questions.


----------



## Laxguy

phat78boy said:


> You are absolutely correct, maybe the term artist would better describe the impact he had on our society. I just can't see calling someone an inventor who didn't really invent anything other then a new way to do something already being done.


OK, let's take fire.... Cave persons were creating it, or taking embers from natural fires. Then they rubbed sticks, magnifying glass and so on.

What about the guy who invented matches? 
What about the guy who invented lighters? 
What about the guy who invented butane lighters? 
Those are all new ways to do something that already was being done, starting fires....


----------



## P Smith

Laxguy said:


> OK, let's take fire.... Cave persons were creating it, or taking embers from natural fires. Then they rubbed sticks, magnifying glass and so on.
> 
> What about the guy who invented matches?
> What about the guy who invented lighters?
> What about the guy who invented butane lighters?
> Those are all new ways to do something that already was being done, starting fires....


And what Jobs have common with matches ?


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> And what Jobs have common with matches ?


Jobs invented a new way of starting fires, similar to placing matches in the toenails of big guys, then lighting them....:eek2:


----------



## Steve

phrelin said:


> One of the things you have to ask yourself, what if they had not brought Jobs back and Apple had gone bankrupt? How would mankind be worse off today?


Good question. In his biography of Jobs, Walter Isaacson called him:


> [...] a creative entrepreneur whose passion for perfection and ferocious drive revolutionized six industries: personal computers, animated movies, music, phones, tablet computing, and digital publishing.


 He went on to say:


> You might even add a seventh, retail stores, which Jobs did not quite revolutionize but did reimagine. In addition, he opened the way for a new market for digital content based on apps rather than just websites. Along the way he produced not only transforming products but also, on his second try, a lasting company, endowed with his DNA, that is filled with creative designers and daredevil engineers who could carry forward his vision.


----------



## P Smith

Steve said:


> Good question. In his biography of Jobs, Walter Isaacson called him: He went on to say:


Who is Isaacson in a word of inventions ? Why his words (with a lot of hype) should be accounted here ?

You must have your own opinion based on something what you would say - the thread calling you for that ! If Walter want - he could come here and we will dispute with him directly ...
Would you name 'revolutionary' if someone 'invent' using ketchup for painting ?


----------



## Steve

P Smith said:


> Who is Isaacson in a word of inventions ? Why his words (with a lot of hype) should be accounted here ?


Quoted to remind us that, among other things, Jobs also brought us _Toy Story_, the app store and 99 cent MP3s, in answer to* Phrelin's* rhetorical question _"what might the world be like today if Jobs hadn't returned to Apple?"_


----------



## P Smith

Steve said:


> Quoted to remind us that, among other things, Jobs also brought us _Toy Story_, the app store and 99 cent MP3s, in answer to* Phrelin's* rhetorical question _"what might the world be like today if Jobs hadn't returned to Apple?"_


Sorry, but it's nothing to remember him as INVENTOR. Nobody will remember this in 10 years or more.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Patents have been approved for some of the lamest things...including rounded corners on devices for example. Try enforcing that one.
> 
> I'd put Mr. Jobs in the category of *master re-packager *and *super-marketer*, not an inventor.


Personally I think it's irrelevant what the patents are for. I think it comes down to is whether or not they were inventions. By that I mean ideas/concepts/products/etc. that didn't exist in a commercially viable form prior to Steve Jobs. IMO, the answer to nearly all of his patents is no.

Here's my take on Steve Jobs. He knew what people wanted and, *most importantly*, what they didn't.

The best example is the iPhone/iPod/iPad. The iPhone wasn't the first modern touch screen smart phone, heck it wasn't even the first all touch screen phone. IBM beat Apple by 13 or 14 years. However, Jobs knew what people wanted and how to package it. The genius part, the part that everyone else *still* fails at, is keeping things consistent and not compromising by creating low end models. You could go from iPhone to iPod without skipping a beat. The look, the feel, the functionality are all familiar and he knew people liked familiar.

Enter the iPad. After 25+ years of dismal flops in every attempt at the tablet PC by many companies (including Apple), Steve Jobs realized he was in the absolutely perfect set of circumstances to finally make a tablet PC a profitable device.

And, he knew that the success of the iPhone/iPod was the key to making it all work. He knew that keeping the interface consistent making the transition so seamless that people would buy iPad in addition to their Apple PC's, laptops, and iPhones with a near zero learning curve and an already existing and proven application base would make iPads fly off the shelves...people like familiar. Consequently, Apple is raking in boat loads of cash in the process across multiple "familiar" platforms. Just Bleepin' Genius!

He knew the iPad wasn't going to be a replacement for PCs and laptops. He even said it wasn't intended to be a replacement. And IMHO, the genius part was in saying so. Previous attempts at tablets were touted as the next step in the evolution of computing. People couldn't see how they could use the tablet to do what they did with their computers so they didn't even bother trying them out. Personally, I believe the smartest thing he ever did when introducing the iPad was the oft forgotten comments about it not replacing computers but augmenting them...enhancing them. Consequently the iPad is a consumption based device that gives people what they want and provides Apple a continuous revenue stream.

I don't think Steve Jobs was an inventor. I think he understood the customer and market in ways that other companies still can't fathom and that puts him into an whole other category altogether.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't think Steve Jobs was an inventor. I think he understood the customer and market in ways that other companies still can't fathom and that puts him into an whole other category altogether.
> 
> Mike


I think you've hit the nail square on the head.


----------



## Laxguy

Good points. 

But has anyone undertaken to really define what an inventor is and is not (leaving out persons for now.)?


----------



## phrelin

Steve said:


> Quoted to remind us that, among other things, Jobs also brought us _Toy Story_, the app store and 99 cent MP3s, in answer to* Phrelin's* rhetorical question _"what might the world be like today if Jobs hadn't returned to Apple?"_


I guess I should have also wondered if in 50 years humanity will be better off because we had...


> [...] a creative entrepreneur whose passion for perfection and ferocious drive revolutionized six industries: personal computers, animated movies, music, phones, tablet computing, and digital publishing.


Perhaps his role in history will be something akin to the royalty, popes, and other persons of wealth who in centuries past assured that artists and others who actually create could work, allowing us now alive hundreds of years later to see and have things that might not have otherwise existed.

The royalty, popes, and other persons of wealth get a place in history. But Michelangelo is (among other achievements) remembered for the Sistine Chapel ceiling and _The Last Judgment_ spanning the entire wall behind the altar of the Sistine Chapel. Pope Julius II is not so well remembered.


----------



## Sixto

Laxguy said:


> Good points.
> 
> But has anyone undertaken to really define what an inventor is and is not (leaving out persons for now.)?


I was tempted earlier to go look up the word "inventor" because he seemed like an "inventor" to me. He certainly seems to have had much input into the development of everything mentioned. It stated "someone who invents" which didn't help much.

We now have alot of cool stuff, industries have changed, new product areas are now hot, some would say that the "retail" world has been transformed.

It all seems like a genius who has invented new stuff to me, not sure that it matters which specific engineer is associated with an individual component. It was a team, and he was the lead person providing direction on most of it.


----------



## Steve

phrelin said:


> Pope Julius II is not so well remembered.


I'll stick with my first impression in this thread. I think Jobs will be remembered to the same extent as Walt Disney, however well-remembered that turns out to be.


----------



## Sixto

The guy had lots of ideas based on his perception of the world.

They developed multiple products based on his ideas.

They filed lots of patents while developing the products.

People have purchased large quantities of the products, with continual growth (so far).

Competitors have developed alternatives based on seeing the products produced.

Other competitors have been dealing with some tough times because their products aren't as competitive any more.

It seems like much doesn't happen without his ideas and direction, which to me sounds like he invented some stuff, whether he was the actual engineer or not.


----------



## Chris Blount

I guess by the rule of the law, Jobs was an inventor:

_______________________________________
Patent law the discovery or production of some new or improved process or machine that is both useful and is not obvious to persons skilled in the particular field.
_______________________________________

I think it might be correct to say he was an inventor under the above definition. For instance, the iPod and iTunes process revolutionalized the music business to the point that if it wasn't invented, we might still be in the dark ages with online music content and portable ways of listening to our music. I'm almost sure that CD sales would be much bigger than they are now.

Sure, Jobs didn't actually physically invent anything new, but he took what was available and made it better which is by definition an "invention". Henry Ford did the same thing with automobiles.


----------



## phrelin

Steve said:


> I'll stick with my first impression in this thread. I think Jobs will be remembered to the same extent as Walt Disney, however well-remembered that turns out to be.


Disney is an excellent comparison. He didn't invent animation, but did it pretty well. He didn't invent the theme park, but certainly improved on the idea. But the real genius was in creating an organization that could do those things and many others well, and then making sure it worked.

Disney had his critics and some of the criticisms were valid. So did Jobs. But genius comes in many forms and accomplishments should be appreciated. It is not necessary to like someone to appreciate their accomplishments.


----------



## Sixto

phrelin said:


> ... It is not necessary to like someone to appreciate their accomplishments.


That is the key phrase of this thread, and the world in general.

It's a rule that I try to live by, which is why I change my mind regularly, as I adapt to new thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Nick

I'm not a big fan of Steve Jobs', but I can certainly appreciate his genius. In some ways, I compare Jobs to a Rembrandt, a Rodin or a Michaelangelo. They didn't invent art, brushes or even chisels and mallets. What they _did_ do was put these materials together creatively in a way that none had done before or perhaps, could ever do.

I think it was Ford who said that success is "one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." I would venture that the percentage of inspiration intrinsic in Jobs' successes was considerably higher. Someone earlier in this thread said that Steve had the foresight to know what people wanted. Actually, it was the other way around. Jobs created products that, for the most part, were so innovative and well-designed that it made people want them -- a better mousetrap, as it were.

One more thing. In most cases, products are designed by focus groups and committees. It is also said that an elephant is a racehorse designed by committee. Steve Jobs was a one-man committee; he was his own focus group.

The key to success is to create a need, then fill it. Steve Jobs did exactly that.


----------



## Shades228

Steve Jobs was not an inventor he was a refiner. No one disputes that he was a phenomenal visionary and that he changed the landscape with his ideas it doesn't mean that he invented anything physically.

He did invent a mythos which while not a physical device is much harder to create as it involves a belief structure.


He could be listed in the top 10 of many great lists but inventor shouldn't be one of them.


----------



## fluffybear

Sure! When we can put someone like Al Gore in the internet hall of fame, I see no reason why why Jobs can not be added to a list of great inventors.


----------



## afulkerson

MysteryMan said:


> Steve Jobs Inventions......Apple III (1980)......iMac G3 (1998)......USB Mouse (1998)......Power Mac G3 (1999)......iPod (2001)......iMac G4 (2002)......iPod GUI (2003)......San Francisco Apple Store (2004)......Power Adapter (2006)......iPhone OS/iOS (2006)......Magic Mouse (2009)......iPod Shuffle (2010)......iPhone 4 (2010)......iPad (2010).


I would question a patent or invention for a STORE.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

fluffybear said:


> Sure! When we can put someone like Al Gore in the internet hall of fame, I see no reason why why Jobs can not be added to a list of great inventors.


Post of the week.


----------



## harsh

phrelin said:


> But genius comes in many forms and accomplishments should be appreciated.


It is what the "genius" is applied to that makes for an invention.

If the "device" makes a man or company rich and famous, it is marketing success. If it truly makes the world a better place (as opposed to being an new alternative to something very old), it is an invention.


----------



## dmurphy

Here's a guy who completely redefined:

Personal computing
Hollywood
Retail
Mobile telecommunications
Music
The WWW *
Personal computing (again)

.... and so much more

You don't have the love the guy, or even love his creations, but there's absolutely no way to argue with the fact that all of the above industries are completely different because of one man.

Thanks Steve.

* - This requires a bit of explanation. Without Safari, and more importantly, without WebKit, we would still be in the 'stone age' of the Browser Wars. WebKit, as far as I'm concerned, is what finally brought ubiquitous access to the WWW across devices - desktops, tablets, mobile devices, and so much more. Without WebKit, we'd be stuck with ActiveX vs. JavaScript, WAP gateways, Flash, Java Craplets, and so much more. I believe WebKit was the 'great equalizer' that - once and for all - gave us a unified web. Tough to remember the WWW before Safari, but man, it sucked.


----------



## RasputinAXP

I still prefer Gecko to Webkit.


----------



## P Smith

dmurphy said:


> Here's a guy who completely redefined:
> 
> Personal computing
> Hollywood
> Retail
> Mobile telecommunications
> Music
> The WWW *
> Personal computing (again)
> 
> .... and so much more
> 
> You don't have the love the guy, or even love his creations, but there's absolutely no way to argue with the fact that all of the above industries are completely different because of one man.
> 
> Thanks Steve.
> 
> * - This requires a bit of explanation. Without Safari, and more importantly, without WebKit, we would still be in the 'stone age' of the Browser Wars. WebKit, as far as I'm concerned, is what finally brought ubiquitous access to the WWW across devices - desktops, tablets, mobile devices, and so much more. Without WebKit, we'd be stuck with ActiveX vs. JavaScript, WAP gateways, Flash, Java Craplets, and so much more. I believe WebKit was the 'great equalizer' that - once and for all - gave us a unified web. Tough to remember the WWW before Safari, but man, it sucked.


It is still questionable of his involvement and attributing everything to one man, especially CEO ... Well, we come again to same point: his achievements are brought him to other category/list, yet of great INVENTORS.


----------



## Laxguy

*Too bad we can't correlate voting to categories, such as:*

Fanbois, Apple and PC
Apple haters
Jobs haters
PC haters
Even handed persons such as myself and everyone who expressed views similar to mine. *

-


----------



## P Smith

Ask Chris, he's stirred the pot.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dmurphy said:


> Here's a guy who completely redefined:
> 
> Personal computing
> Hollywood
> Retail
> Mobile telecommunications
> Music
> The WWW *
> Personal computing (again)
> 
> .... and so much more
> 
> You don't have the love the guy, or even love his creations, but there's absolutely no way to argue with the fact that all of the above industries are completely different because of one man.
> 
> Thanks Steve.
> 
> * - This requires a bit of explanation. Without Safari, and more importantly, without WebKit, we would still be in the 'stone age' of the Browser Wars. WebKit, as far as I'm concerned, is what finally brought ubiquitous access to the WWW across devices - desktops, tablets, mobile devices, and so much more. Without WebKit, we'd be stuck with ActiveX vs. JavaScript, WAP gateways, Flash, Java Craplets, and so much more. I believe WebKit was the 'great equalizer' that - once and for all - gave us a unified web. Tough to remember the WWW before Safari, but man, it sucked.


I disagree with two points. Steve Jobs, has not redefined Personal Computing. According to Apple Insider (Link) Apple has less than 15% of the US market and 5% world wide market share. This means that in the US 85% (95% world wide) of PCs are something other than an Apple. IMHO, after thirty plus years in the market, those numbers do not constitute the redefinition of Personal Computing.

I also have to disagree with redefining the WWW. Safari makes up about 5% of the total browser market (Link). Your explanation implies that the WWW developers decided to streamline their processes to the smallest segment of the browser market instead of trying to meet the needs of the 95% using other browsers.

Heck, WebKit isn't even an Apple innovation. It was started in 1998 by the KDE open source community using their KHTML and JavaScript Engine. Apple didn't even get involved until 2001 and it didn't release a WebKit based browser until 2003...five years after someone else introduced WebKit. WebKit developers include Google, Palm, and Samsung to name a few. Google Chrome was built from the ground up using WebKit.

Apple has been a major driver of WebKit/WebCore, not doubt about it. However, you can't attribute that to Steve Jobs. He isn't even the guy who started the Apple fork of WebKit at Apple. I can't remember the guys name (I'm having search problems at work today) but it wasn't Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs contribution to technology is massive. He will go down in history as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, innovator of his time but lets not attributing every achievement and technological direction under the sun to Steve Jobs. IMHO, it minimizes the contributions of others and that's just wrong.

Mike


----------



## Steve

Mike Bertelson said:


> I disagree with two points. Steve Jobs, has not redefined Personal Computing. According to Apple Insider (Link) Apple has less than 15% of the US market and 5% world wide market share. This means that in the US 85% (95% world wide) of PCs are something other than an Apple. IMHO, after thirty plus years in the market, those numbers do not constitute the redefinition of Personal Computing.
> 
> I also have to disagree with redefining the WWW. Safari makes up about 5% of the total browser market (Link). Your explanation implies that the WWW developers decided to streamline their processes to the smallest segment of the browser market instead of trying to meet the needs of the 95% using other browsers.
> 
> Heck, WebKit isn't even an Apple innovation. It was started in 1998 by the KDE open source community using their KHTML and JavaScript Engine. Apple didn't even get involved until 2001 and it didn't release a WebKit based browser until 2003...five years after someone else introduced WebKit. WebKit developers include Google, Palm, and Samsung to name a few. Google Chrome was built from the ground up using WebKit.
> 
> Apple has been a major driver of WebKit/WebCore, not doubt about it. However, you can't attribute that to Steve Jobs. He isn't even the guy who started the Apple fork of WebKit at Apple. I can't remember the guys name (I'm having search problems at work today) but it wasn't Steve Jobs.
> 
> Steve Jobs contribution to technology is massive. He will go down in history as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, innovator of his time but lets not attributing every achievement and technological direction under the sun to Steve Jobs. IMHO, it minimizes the contributions of others and that's just wrong.
> 
> Mike


Not the best source, I know, but according to Wikipedia, Webkit, per se, was started as an Apple project led by Don Melton in 2001. It was, as you say, based on the 1998 KDE layout and JS engines.

I guess it's kind of like the graphical user interface. Apple didn't invent it, Xerox, did, but Jobs brought the GUI mainstream when he developed the Macintosh. To that extent, you could argue Apple did re-invent personal computing, or we might all still be using command prompts. 

I also agree with *dmurphy *that Apple eschewing iOS Shockwave, Flash and Java is one of the driving forces behind HTML5 development.


----------



## Chris Blount

Just posted today. Silly but fun.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/80448


----------



## dmurphy

Mike Bertelson said:


> I disagree with two points. Steve Jobs, has not redefined Personal Computing. According to Apple Insider (Link) Apple has less than 15% of the US market and 5% world wide market share. This means that in the US 85% (95% world wide) of PCs are something other than an Apple. IMHO, after thirty plus years in the market, those numbers do not constitute the redefinition of Personal Computing.
> 
> I also have to disagree with redefining the WWW. Safari makes up about 5% of the total browser market (Link). Your explanation implies that the WWW developers decided to streamline their processes to the smallest segment of the browser market instead of trying to meet the needs of the 95% using other browsers.
> 
> Heck, WebKit isn't even an Apple innovation. It was started in 1998 by the KDE open source community using their KHTML and JavaScript Engine. Apple didn't even get involved until 2001 and it didn't release a WebKit based browser until 2003...five years after someone else introduced WebKit. WebKit developers include Google, Palm, and Samsung to name a few. Google Chrome was built from the ground up using WebKit.
> 
> Apple has been a major driver of WebKit/WebCore, not doubt about it. However, you can't attribute that to Steve Jobs. He isn't even the guy who started the Apple fork of WebKit at Apple. I can't remember the guys name (I'm having search problems at work today) but it wasn't Steve Jobs.
> 
> Steve Jobs contribution to technology is massive. He will go down in history as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, innovator of his time but lets not attributing every achievement and technological direction under the sun to Steve Jobs. IMHO, it minimizes the contributions of others and that's just wrong.
> 
> Mike


You don't have to conquer the market to redefine it. The Apple // defined what it meant to have a personal computer. So did the iMac. The iMac especially did not have to have the largest market share; but it changed the way everyone approached the personal computing space.

Same with WebKit. It doesn't have to have the top market share (and Safari certainly doesn't) but it changed the way we look at browsing - ESPECIALLY in the mobile space. Prior to WebKit, mobile browsers, for lack of a better term, sucked ass. BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, PalmOS, Symbian - all had incredibly bad browsers. WebKit and/or Mobile Safari changed the game by bringing a full HTML experience from the desktop to the mobile. It doesn't have to have the top market share to do that - it just has to REDEFINE the industry, and it sure as heck did that.

Of course WebKit was based on KDE... that's immaterial. It wasn't Earth-shattering until Apple put it on a mobile handset. I'd go so far as to say that even the desktop version of Safari/WebKit, while a good and decent browser, didn't change the game... but translating that to a phone? Changed everything.

And yep, I give Jobs a lot of credit for both of those because, even though he may not have been the core developer, it was his poking, prodding, and relentless pursuit of perfection that brought them to us. I don't want to undermine anyone else's credit - they deserve tons of it - but without Jobs' vision, we'd be stuck with WAP browsers.

As he was so fond of saying ..... "If I asked my customers what they want, they'd say a faster horse." Whether he was the chief inventor or not is immaterial; he was an innovator, and quite possibly the best of the 20th century.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Steve said:


> Not the best source, I know, but according to Wikipedia, Webkit, per se, was started as an Apple project led by Don Melton in 2001. It was, as you say, based on the 1998 KDE layout and JS engines.
> 
> I guess it's kind of like the graphical user interface. Apple didn't invent it, Xerox, did, but Jobs brought the GUI mainstream when he developed the Macintosh. To that extent, you could argue Apple did re-invent personal computing to a certain extent, or we might all still be using command prompts.
> 
> I also agree with *dmurphy *that Apple eschewing iOS Shockwave, Flash and Java is one of the driving forces behind HTML5 development.


I believe WebKit is currently a collaboration between quite a few companies/entities including KDE, Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. It's not something Apple created on their own. My point was that by saying Steve Jobs redefined the World Wide Web with WebKit completely discounts everyone else who were, and still are, involved in its development and implementation. WebKit is not and never was the brainchild of Steve Jobs.

Don Melton. That's the name I couldn't remember. Wikipedia doesn't load at work. It's not blocked, like most other websites, but is nearly useless so I don't even bother. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dmurphy said:


> You don't have to conquer the market to redefine it. The Apple // defined what it meant to have a personal computer. So did the iMac. The iMac especially did not have to have the largest market share; but it changed the way everyone approached the personal computing space.
> 
> Same with WebKit. It doesn't have to have the top market share (and Safari certainly doesn't) but it changed the way we look at browsing - ESPECIALLY in the mobile space. Prior to WebKit, mobile browsers, for lack of a better term, sucked ass. BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, PalmOS, Symbian - all had incredibly bad browsers. WebKit and/or Mobile Safari changed the game by bringing a full HTML experience from the desktop to the mobile. It doesn't have to have the top market share to do that - it just has to REDEFINE the industry, and it sure as heck did that.
> 
> Of course WebKit was based on KDE... that's immaterial. It wasn't Earth-shattering until Apple put it on a mobile handset. I'd go so far as to say that even the desktop version of Safari/WebKit, while a good and decent browser, didn't change the game... but translating that to a phone? Changed everything.
> 
> *And yep, I give Jobs a lot of credit for both of those because, even though he may not have been the core developer, it was his poking, prodding, and relentless pursuit of perfection that brought them to us.* I don't want to undermine anyone else's credit - they deserve tons of it - but without Jobs' vision, we'd be stuck with WAP browsers.
> 
> As he was so fond of saying ..... "If I asked my customers what they want, they'd say a faster horse." Whether he was the chief inventor or not is immaterial; he was an innovator, and quite possibly the best of the 20th century.


The bolded portion is what I have the most problem with. What about Don Melton? He's the guy who started and ran Apple's WebKit group. What about Google, Samsung, KDE, Nokia, Palm, RIM, etc.? Every one of these companies/entities and more is part of the WebKit collaboration.

By saying it's all due to Steve Jobs to the exclusion of everyone else is just wrong. You're implying that everyone else's contribution is insignificant and that Steve Jobs deserves the credit. Further, you're implying that Steve Jobs had direct control over the development efforts of all the other collaborators.

Steve Jobs without a doubt defined digital music and tablet computing. AAMOF, I believe Job's implementation of the iPad was shear genius. These areas of tech are definitely what they are because of Steve Jobs.

However, the idea that all those other technical areas are what they are solely due to Steve Jobs, over everyone else is, in my eyes, completely unfair.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## P Smith

> AAMOF, I believe Job's implementation of the iPad was shear genius.


Before side with you for that, I would like to know who was that engineer who exactly did iPad's design 100s times ? Before Jobs APPROVED its current variant.


----------



## Steve

P Smith said:


> Before side with you for that, I would like to know who was that engineer who exactly did iPad's design 100s times ? Before Jobs APPROVED its current variant.


No matter. It was Jobs who made them go back 100 times, until he was satisfied the device was ready for public consumption.

A little off topic, but I was surprised to learn from reading the _Steve Jobs_ bio that even though it was released 3 years later, iPad design began _before _iPhone design, and the first iPhone was actually based on the iPad prototype.


----------



## Sixto

Steve said:


> No matter. It was Jobs who made them go back 100 times, until he was satisfied the device was ready for public consumption ...


Exactly, the inventions would not have been like they are without him, which is why he's co-authored on the patents/inventions.

It's not a coincidence that dozens of articles refer to him as an inventor. It's not black and white that one single engineer is king. It's a team, and like football, you need a quarterback, and a coach, and a GM, and in many respects he was all three at times, with a team under his leadership.


----------



## P Smith

Well, I would accept the analogy in one part - GM. 
And would keep him in the place without idolizing and giving him too much credits for all gadgets with a label Apple and not.

Umm, the creator of that iPad was real person, not a picker of particular shape.


----------



## Shades228

However each of the items people are crediting him for inventing are not new items. He didn't bring a new item to the market he brought, to some, better items of the same type.

So again he didn't invent as he more refined. Which he did well enough for people to buy into.

Example: Thomas Edison invented the phonograph. Thomas Edison did not make the best phonograph.


----------



## Laxguy

OMG! Shades of BetaMax/VCR war:



> There were numerous problems with "compatibility" in the 1890s and early 1900s. *Phonograph and graphophone *records were not interchangeable. Both companies introduced variations on the basic technology (longer-playing cylinders or larger diameter cylinders) that could not be played on older machines. Also, new inventors were springing up to try to cash in. Some built their players according to phonograph or graphophone standards, but others did not.


----------



## Draconis

I do not think the word “inventor” really applies to Steve Jobs, the majority of what Apple made pre-existed the actual product, Jobs just made it pretty and easy to use. 

I think “innovator” is more appropriate.


----------



## Laxguy

What is your definition of "inventor"? Do you limit it to tangible items only?


----------



## phat78boy

Draconis said:


> I do not think the word "inventor" really applies to Steve Jobs, the majority of what Apple made pre-existed the actual product, Jobs just made it pretty and easy to use.
> 
> I think "innovator" is more appropriate.


I'm with you on this. I know many people who truly think the iPhone was the first smart phone. He had a knack for making people buy whatever he was selling, but nothing he was selling was truly new. They were just innovative, re-imagined products of things already on the market.


----------



## dexware

Jobs didn't invent anything, all of his drones did.


----------



## P Smith

dexware said:


> Jobs didn't invent anything, all of his drones did.


These are real ppl who spent enormous time for making the Apple products so valuable for us.

I see here an analogy with pyramids, Pharaoh and Egyptian workers.


----------



## Laxguy

Apple haters: Do you think you could limit yourself to two or three posts in this poll??


----------



## Chris Blount

Laxguy said:


> Apple haters: Do you think you could limit yourself to two or three posts in this poll??


Might as well tolerate them. It's not their fault they are too poor to own Apple product. LOL


----------



## Laxguy

Chris Blount said:


> Might as well tolerate them. It's not their fault they are too poor to own Apple product. LOL


Heh. Well, I am pretty sure that will get a few replies! Plus my theory that for many, it's not a lack of funds, but lack of information and judgement.....


----------



## Drew2k

Laxguy said:


> Apple haters: Do you think you could limit yourself to two or three posts in this poll??


Should Apple lovers limit themselves to two or three posts as well?


----------



## Chris Blount

Well, to those that think Steve Jobs is not an inventor, you will just love this. Scroll down a bit.

http://www.invent.org/2012induction/


----------



## P Smith

That's sounds fair:


> Jobs made critical contributions to the operating systems for the devices, the design of user interfaces, and the touch screen technology incorporated into them.


But this is so ... "inventive", well... hell yeah:


> Graphical User Interface and Methods of Use Thereof in a Multimedia Player


----------



## Nick

> The National Inventors Hall of Fame was established in 1973 to honor the individuals who conceived, patented, and advanced the great technological achievements since the birth of our nation.


That definition of 'inventor' is good enough for me. Now, I'm off to isolate the byzantium atom. :grin:


----------



## P Smith

being in a list of "patented" things != nominated in a list of top inventors

We should give the man final rest 'without digging his grave' ... He is gone forever and any nomination will be silly after that.


----------



## Laxguy

Drew2k said:


> Should Apple lovers limit themselves to two or three posts as well?


Yes, if it's trolling or being a fanboi. 
Answering questions or providing information does not count against the total, so this one is also exempt.....

:eek2:


----------



## Shades228

Chris Blount said:


> Well, to those that think Steve Jobs is not an inventor, you will just love this. Scroll down a bit.
> 
> http://www.invent.org/2012induction/


Oh well in that case he must be an inventor just like Run DMC is a Rock N Roll hall of fame inductee so they're rock n roll.

However it's good to see people who invented things like a carbon dioxide laser going in with someone who created a graphical sortings system. I'm confused why the other inventors aren't listed though.



> In a portable multimedia device, a method, apparatus, and system for providing user supplied configuration data are described. In one embodiment, a hierarchically ordered graphical user interface are provided. A first order, or home, interface provides a highest order of user selectable items each of which, when selected, results in an automatic transition to a lower order user interface associated with the selected item. In one of the described embodiments, the lower order interface includes other user selectable items associated with the previously selected item from the higher order user interface.
> *Inventors*: Jeffrey L. Robbin, Steve Jobs, Timothy Wasko, Greg Christie, Imran Chaudhri


Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US7166791


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Apple haters: Do you think you could limit yourself to two or three posts in this poll??


Why do those who place themselves on the business end of the barbs so often feel compelled to divide things up into camps?

Exclusion is, for some, the highest form of flattery.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Chris Blount said:


> Well, to those that think Steve Jobs is not an inventor, you will just love this. Scroll down a bit.
> 
> http://www.invent.org/2012induction/


As I posted before I believe the iPod interface is an invention. While I think that nearly all of the patents he's named on are not inventions per se, the iPod/iTunes is one of the few that qualifies. Of course that's just my opinion.

One could argue that regardless of how many truly unique inventions, his influence can be seen throughout the tech industry. That coupled with the importance of his inventions does make him unique even among his peers.

I'll never see Steve Jobs on par Edison or Da vinci and see him more of an innovator but it's hard to argue with being inducted for the iPod interface.

Mike


----------

