Featured Post -

News 1
News 2
News 3
News 4




Showing posts with label Steve Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Jobs. Show all posts

Edison tops Jobs as world's greatest innovator

Sunday, January 29, 2012 0 comments




A group of 1,000 young people consider the world's greatest innovator to be Thomas Edison, whose crowning left the late Steve Jobs in second place.
Edison, the creator of the light bulb and phonograph, among many other inventions, earned the top title among 52 percent of those polled by Lemelson-MIT, a program that tries to honor inventors who have improved our lives and gauge peoples' perceptions about innovation.
Often lauded for his spirit of creativity, especially following his death, Jobs took second place with 24 percent citing him as the greatest innovator of all time.
The results surprised the researchers at Lemelson-MIT since the survey was aimed at people in the U.S. from 16 to 25 years old, an age group considered part of the "Apple generation." In fact, when asked how smartphones and tablets influence their lives, 40 percent of those polled said they couldn't imagine their lives without such devices.
In a further nod to past innovators, those polled put Alexander Graham Bell in third place for his invention of the phone, followed by Marie Curie for her work in the field of radioactivity.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg took the fifth spot, with aviator Amelia Earhart up next. Rounding out the list was Temple Grandin, who has earned respect as a doctor of animal science and inventor despite being autistic.
Both Earhart and Grandin have been the subjects of recent movies.
Looking beyond the list, Lemelson-MIT found that people value innovation but feel it doesn't merit the attention it deserves. Around half of those polled think that a lack of invention will hurt the U.S. economy. But they don't necessarily feel qualified to take up the mantle themselves
A full 60 percent believe there are certain factors that would prevent them from pursuing an education or job in science, technology, math, and related fields. And almost half (45 percent) don't think that invention receives enough attention in their schools.
"Hands-on invention activities are critical, but few too many students have opportunities to learn and develop their inventive skills," Leigh Estabrooks, the Lemelson-MIT Program's invention education officer, said in a statement. "This year's survey revealed that less than half of respondents have done things like used a drill or hand-held power tool, or made something out of raw materials in the past year. We must engage students in these types of invention experiences as well as provide a strong STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education to drive future innovators."
Now in its 16th year, the latest Lemelson-MIT Invention Index polled 1,010 people altogether between December 9 and 15 of last year

Meet the Internet’s newest boy genius -

Monday, January 9, 2012 0 comments




Meetings, travel, Le Web and pitches from countless startups have left me exhausted. I have hardly slept for nearly a week. I am tired and a little irritated and in need of a pick-me-up. An espresso shot isn’t enough. What I need is a conversation that would sharpen my senses dulled by repetitiveness of ideas and marginality of ambition.

And in the nick of time (pun intended), enter Nick D’Aloisio — founder and for now chief executive officer of a London-based company, Summly. (Download the app) On paper, it is yet another start-up with yet another iPhoneapp. Summly essentially looks at the content of a web page and creates a quick summary of that web page, then formats it nicely for the iPhone screen.

It is solving the problem that many others are trying to solve — how to make sense of the web overrun by factory-produced, SEO-optimized diahrrea of words. Making sense of Googlesearch results has become the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette. Finding information has regressed, even as the web as progressed at neck-snapping speed.

Except D’Aloisio turns out to be a 16-year-old kid from Wimbledon, England who drops phrases like “heuristics” and “natural language processing.” After hanging out with his friends, he heads home to read papers about machine learning. We are sitting in the reception hall of the moderately priced Motel One, a stone’s throw from Berlin’s main train station. The weather outside is miserable — cold, gray and wet. D’Aloisio, who woke up at 4 a.m. is bouncing with energy and is busy telling me his story and his dreams. The more I listen, the more I am swept up by his enthusiasm.

In my life I have met many smart people — Jeff Bezos, Andy Bechtolsheim, Larry Page, Andy Grove, Sergey Brin, Vinod Khosla and Bret Taylor. D’Aloisio belongs with them, I am convinced. Not because he has started the next hot company — who can predict what will be hot? But instead, he is a self-taught polymath, who is so adept at learning from reading, listening and observing. He is an old-fashioned technologist who was born this way.

Nick O’ Time


Let me share his story. Nick’s dad is an investment banker and his mother’s a lawyer. He grew up in Perth, Australia, where he fell in love with rugby and cricket. The clear, big night skies made stargazing a fun activity and before you know it, he was learning everything about stars and galaxies and black holes. He was not even 5. At age 7, his family moved to London. A year later, he annoyed his parents into buying him a MacBook Pro.

Why? He wanted to learn how to replicate videos he saw on television. He figured out iMovie, Final Cut Pro and some Autodeskprograms. Of course, he couldn’t recreate the commercials he saw, but started getting close enough. In 2007, he got an iPhone and a year later when the App Store launched, he went out to learn the iOS SDK.

A couple of months later, he created an app, SoundStumble — a geo-local music discovery app that allowed you to see what people were listening in your vicinity. Encouraged by that app, he came up with Facemood, an app that looked at your friend’s Facebook timeline and summarized what kind of mood they were in. Facemood was followed by TrimIt, an iOS app that was downloaded and used by 100,000 people. His logic for developing the app? Information overload.

“Seven months ago I got into Twitter and was getting a lot of URLs, but being on a slow phone network it would take 15 seconds to load up a page and I couldn’t view the content ahead of time,” he recalls. It was frustrating. The situation on Google is even worse. ”I don’t have enough time whilst on the go to click in and out of every article and story on the web,” he says. What he wanted was to figure out a way to skim-read its entire content before deciding to read through its entirety.

Sentiment is everything


D’Aloisio confesses that he is obsessed with sentiment analysis and each app is a step forward into his obsession with making sense of large data sets. He reads paper on natural language processing and machine learning in order to pick up the best techniques and learns from the masters. He uses iTunes University. And what he doesn’t know, he asks. He is not shy. He has emailed experts, without making them aware of his age or background.

The success of TrimIt didn’t go unnoticed. A few press mentions caught the attention of Solina Chao, a key investor with Horizons, the private equity investment vehicle of of Li Ka-Shing, the Chinese billionaire and owner of the 3 Group. Their previous investments include Skype, Facebook and Spotify. She convinced Nick and his parents that it was time for him to take the next step and turn TrimIt into a company. Of course, Horizons’  made the seed investment in what is now known as Summly, a service that allows webpages and news articles to be automatically compressed into succinct summaries.

Summly uses a text-summarizing algorithm that has been trained with sample pages from across the web and has trained itself to use optimized metrics when formulating a summary of any article or webpage. The service uses an ontological detection so that the “algorithm detects what kind of webpage has been entered into Summly e.g. a technology article, and applies our appropriate technology article summarizing metrics accordingly.” The algorithm’s preliminary evaluation showed that it outperformed other text summarizers by a factor of 40 percent, D’Aloisio claims. And it supposedly works across many different languages.

I have no idea of knowing whether his claims are accurate. Being on the road, I have not even had time to do my due diligence. All I know is that the early version of the app (that is going live sometime later today) works quite well. It allows me to get summaries of articles from publications like The Guardian. I get summaries of news items via News APIs of Google and Bing. Smart tagging allows me to discover more information. It just seems to work.

“This is the right time for us to be tackling this product,” he says. Nick points out that even Google knows that something needs to be done. It has launched Google Previews, but again it is not the ideal solution. “Google’s UI hasn’t kept up with the changing nature of the web and the Internet,” says D’Aloisio and is of the opinion that the click-centric web behavior is going to soon be a thing of the past. Whether it is video, text or photos, there will be a lot more automation in how the information is surfaced to us, Nick says, arguing that it is a journey that has only just begun. “I think of artificial intelligence as applied to everyday life,” he adds.

Best is yet to come


We walk over to the train station, looking for sustenance. There aren’t many options, so we settle on a German version of a diner. I have currywurst, Nick tucks into another kind of sausage. But we mostly talk about his “tech” life and how he reconciles it with his other life, one that of a student and a teenager. “I enjoy school and being with my friends, and I do indeed have to work hard at school,” Nick explains. “School is a lot of work.” He is learning Russian, Mandarin and a smattering of other languages. As our conversation progresses, Nick, being a little impatient points out that “It is the project that has got me here and not being a kid.” He doesn’t want to be seen as a kid with an app. Instead, it is an app with a kid behind it.

When I ask if he will get a CEO to help him out, D’Aloisio says of course, in time. For now he wants to focus his tiny little company on the product. He points out that most founders have a vision of the product and they can see it and when that vision isn’t brought to fruition, it causes irritation. It is one of the reasons he is still obsessive about controlling every aspect of the product. “I want to ensure it is my true vision,” he emphatically states.

From design to coding, D’Aloisio is obsessive about controlling the product — much like one of his idols, Steve Jobs. He is currently reading Jobs’ biography and we discuss it for a bit before both of us concluding, thank god for Macs. A minute later we are discussing typography and the importance of design and user experience. We talk cricket and how the current Australian team sucks. We talk some more about design and typography.

After a while we shake hands and part ways. As a parting comment I tell Nick that this might not be his last company for his quest to make sense of data is still a journey incomplete. He smiles, he says. “I know.” I will hazard a guess — the world and all of us who believe in technology will be hearing about the exploits of this young man for a very long time.

Steve Jobs' legacy and the tech lessons of 2011

Saturday, December 31, 2011 0 comments

 Steve Jobs at the unveiling of the iPad 2 in March of this year.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

We learned a few things in 2011 about the industry Steve Jobs left behind.

We learned that tech is more resilient, more dynamic than the overall economy. OK, maybe we already knew that, but it's a lesson that was certainly reinforced. We learned that innovation has truly passed from the desktop to what fits in your hand. And we learned those folks at Sun Microsystems were right, if more than a few years too early: The network really is the computer; we just call it the cloud now. And your data, your music, and your life are moving there.

Most importantly, we learned the high-tech world can take a step back and reflect when a true pioneer dies. On Oct. 5, we received word that Jobs, Apple's co-founder, a man who had a turn-everything-on-its-head impact on three industries (or more), died from the pancreatic cancer he had fought for years. You can't overstate Jobs' impact on the tech market; hell, on America. He was the Henry Ford of the microprocessor, a master craftsman, an obsessive devotee to detail and a belief that people want quality. Forced out of the company he founded only to return a few years later to save it, he also proved that in business there can be, in fact, the occasional second act.

So what else did we learn this year? We feared the specter of public venture capital; that's when mediocre outfits conduct an initial public offering so they can get enough money to stay in business. But investors proved a lot savvier than we gave them credit: Companies with strong prospects, like LinkedIn, were welcomed to the public markets. Others, like Zynga? Not so much. At least not so far.
We learned that patents and the lawyers who understand them are more important than ever, especially if you have a few billion dollars, like Apple and its friends, to buy big stacks of patents from failing older companies. Google doesn't have a big stack of patents, so it spent $12.5 billion to buy them through the planned acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

Those billions that companies are spending to buy patents and litigate for and against them? That's billions that could be spent on on new factories, research and development, or shareholder dividends. That's billions that are making tech entrepreneurs and the investors behind them sweat bullets every time they add a new, potentially lawsuit-inducing feature.

Still don't think 2012 should be the year of patent reform?

Speaking of entrepreneurs, it was a great year to have a new idea, or even an old idea if you were a new entrepreneur. Tech venture investing was on track to be at its highest level in a decade. Guys like Dave McClure were spreading the money far and wide, while others like Sean Parker (personally, I'd be flattered if Justin Timberlake played me in a movie) warned that no good will come of such promiscuous funding.

Who's right? Bet we find out next year.

Here's another lesson: It turns out AT&T still can get federal regulators riled up when it tries to buy a direct competitor like T-Mobile. We learned that Google can get federal regulators riled up when it tries to do, well, just about anything. And Microsoft...do execs there pine for the days when they were successfully invading new market niches and drawing the ire of the Justice Department?
Probably a lot more of the latter than the former.

What did we learn about Jobs' legacy? Let's start with noting that Jobs' company and the industry he helped create somehow defied the global economic funk (at least for now). Despite bad end-of-year news from Oracle and supply concerns for Intel, tech still looks strong, even as the rest of the American economy is stuck in first gear, as protesters on both ends of the political spectrum target banking plutocrats in New York and their feckless political allies in Washington D.C. (who appear to be more inept by the day), and as the European debt crisis has reminded us that southern Europe is a wonderful place to visit--since no one seems to be working very hard.

Whew, that was a run-on rant.

While protesters in the US railed against the 1 percent, protesters in the Middle East had a new tool: social media. Inevitable? Perhaps. Now repressive regimes don't just shut the newspapers and gather up the dissidents: They cut off Facebook and Twitter and mobile networks.

So anyway, there were solid new tech products and there were some duds in 2011. We loved the new Kindle Fire and the iPad 2, and we mocked the Playbook. New, fierce rivalries like Twitter and Facebook emerged while old ones like Oracle and Hewlett-Packard got downright litigious. And yes, there were disasters. Netflix, Research in Motion, and HP reminded us that even the best of companies can run off the rails, fast.

Yet Jobs' death loomed over the year in tech. He reminded us that no matter how successful and how wealthy a man or his business become, we are all, in the end, vulnerable. Apple is the most valuable tech company in the world, and was briefly the most valuable company, period. It released another round of successful products, it continued to open new stores, including a new location in New York's Grand Central Terminal, and it announced plans to build a giant, new Silicon Valley headquarters that looks like Pentagon with the angles shaved off.

Jobs remains a cipher. Despite days of television and Internet commentary, an endless stream of stories and a best-selling, authorized biography that showed the man, warts and all, we're no closer to truly understanding what made Jobs tick at the end of 2011 than we were in 1976, when he and his buddy Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computer. Genius or jerk? Tech and cultural visionary or just a very savvy businessman? All of the above? For all the detail of famed biographer Walter Isaacson's Jobs book, he never reached the insight of his Albert Einstein biography: Einstein searched for God in the mathematical laws of the universe.

Are all people who achieve big things driven by something so profound? Who knows. But it's a lot more interesting to write about tech entrepreneurs than people on Wall Street.

The Myth of the Innovator Heros -

Friday, November 18, 2011 0 comments

Every successful modern e-gadget is a combination of components made by many makers. The story of how the transistor became the building block of modern machines explains why. 







We like to think that invention comes as a flash of insight, the equivalent of that sudden Archimedean displacement of bath water that occasioned one of the most famous Greek interjections, εὕρηκα. Then the inventor gets to rapidly translating a stunning discovery into a new product. Its mass appeal soon transforms the world, proving once again the power of a single, simple idea.

But this story is a myth. The popular heroic narrative has almost nothing to do with the way modern invention (conceptual creation of a new product or process, sometimes accompanied by a prototypical design) and innovation (large-scale diffusion of commercially viable inventions) work. A closer examination reveals that many award-winning inventions are re-inventions.

Most scientific or engineering discoveries would never become successful products without contributions from other scientists or engineers. Every major invention is the child of far-flung parents who may never meet. These contributions may be just as important as the original insight, but they will not attract public adulation. They will not be celebrated by media, and they will not be rewarded with Nobel prizes. We insist on celebrating lone heroic path-finders but even the most admired, and the most successful inventors are part of a more remarkable supply chain innovators who are largely ignored for the simpler mythology of one man or one eureka moment.

THE BIRTH OF MODERN ELECTRONICS


Perhaps nothing explodes the myth of the Lonely Innovator Hero like the story of modern electronics. To oversimplify a bit, electronics works though the switching of electronic signals and the amplification of their power and voltage. In the early years of the 20th century, switching and amplification was done (poorly) with vacuum tubes. In the middle of the 20th century, it was done more efficiently by transistors. Today, most of this work is done on microchips (large numbers of transistors on a silicon wafer), which became the basic building block of modern electronics, essential for not only computers and cellphones but also products ranging from cars to jetliners. All of these machines are now operated and controlled by -- simply stated -- the switching and amplification of electronic signals.

The dazzling and oversimplified story about electronics goes like this: The transistor was discovered by scientists at Bell Labs in 1947, leading directly to integrated circuits, which in turn led straight to microprocessors whose development brought us microcomputers and ubiquitous cellphones.

The real story is more complicated, but it explains how invention really happens -- through a messy process of copy, paste, and edit. The first transistor was patented 20 years before the Bell Labs scientists, in 1925 by Julius Lilienfeld. In 1947, Walter Brattain and John Bardeen amplified power and voltage using a germanium crystal but their transistor -- the point-contact transistor -- did not become the workhorse of modern electronics. That role has been played by the junction field-effect transistor, which was conceptualized in 1948 and patented in 1951 by William Shockley (seen in next photo). Today, even the Bell System Memorial site concedes that "it's perfectly clear that Bell Labs didn't invent the transistor, they re-invented it."

Moreover, germanium -- the material used in the epochal 1947 transistor -- did not become the foundation of modern electronics. That would be silicon, since the element is roughly 150,000-times more common in the Earth's crust than germanium.

Shockley.jpg
HOW SILICON CHANGED EVERYTHING


This is where another essential invention comes into the story. Semiconductor-grade silicon must be ultrapure before doping, or adding tiny amounts of impurities to change its conductivity.

The number of transistors on a chip went from 2,300 in 1971 to 1 million by 1990 to 2 billion by 2010

In order to lower the production costs of silicon wafer, a crystal from which the wafers are sliced must be relatively large. These requirements led to new ways of silicon purification (purity of 99.9999% is common) and to ingenious methods of growing large crystals, both being enormous technical accomplishments in their own right. The story of crystal-making began in 1918 when Jan Czochralski, a Polish metallurgist, discovered how to convert extremely pure polycrystalline material into a single crystal; procedures for growing larger crystals were introduced in the early 1950s by Gordon Teal and Ernest Buehler at the Bell Labs. Soon afterwards Teal became the chief of R&D at Texas Instruments where a team led by Willis Adcock developed the first silicon transistor in 1954.

In May 1954, at a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers National Convention in Dayton, Teal demonstrated another advantage of silicon. After he announced that his company made first silicon transistors, Teal turned and switched on an RCA 45-rpm turntable, playing the swinging sounds of Artie Shaw's "Summit Ridge Drive." The germanium transistors in the amplifier of the record player were dunked in a beaker of hot oil, and the sound died away as the devices failed from the high temperature. Then Teal switched over to an identical amplifier with silicon transistors, placed it in the hot oil, and the music played on.

Intel Core.jpgThe relentless quest for larger crystals was on as generations of researchers pushed the diameter from the original half an inch to 12 inches and lowered the unit production costs. Availability of ultra-pure silicon opened the way to crowding tiny transistors on silicon wafers in order to make first integrated circuits (Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby in 1959). Then a way to deposit one atomic layer of silicon crystals had to be found (Bell Lab group led by Alfred Cho did that in 1968) before a group at Intel (Marcian Hoff, Stanley Mazor and Federico Faggin as the main protagonists) could make its first microprocessor (essentially a computer on a chip, seen in the photo) in 1971, for a Japanese programmable calculator.

The small armies of scientists and engineers employed by Intel and other chipmakers had to come up with new ways to place larger numbers of transistors on a chip. Their total increased from just 2,300 transistors in 1971, to more than one million by 1990, and to more than two billion by 2010. And, obviously, crowding all of these transistors in order to make computers on a chip would be useless unless somebody wrote a machine language that could be used to impart the processing instructions. The man who made some of the most fundamental contributions in that regard was Dennis Ritchie, the creator of C, a language that eventually led to Java and UNIX.

THE HERO MYTH


Ritchie died a few days after Steve Jobs. There were no TV specials, no genius epithets on cable news. Ritchie -- much like Czochralski, Lilienfeld, Teal, Frosch, Noyce, Cho, Hoff or Fagin -- was "just" one of hundreds of innovators whose ideas, procedures and designs, aided and advanced by cooperative efforts of thousands of collaborators and decades-long investment of hundreds of billions of dollars, had to be combined in order to create an entirely new e-world.

These aren't the exceptions. Collaboration and augmentation are the foundational principles of innovation. Modern path-breaking invention/innovation is always a process, always an agglomerative, incremental and cooperative enterprise, based on precedents and brought to commercial reality by indispensable contributions of other inventors, innovators and investors. Ascribing the credit for these advances to an individual or to a handful of innovators is a caricature of reality propagated by a search for a hero. The era of heroic inventions has been over for generations. A brilliant mind having a eureka moment could not create an Intel microprocessor containing a billion transistors any more than one person could dream up a Boeing 787 from scratch.

Eureka moments do exist, and some inventors have made truly spectacular individual contributions. But we pay too much attention to a few individuals and too little attention to the many moments of meaningful innovation that come next.


Steve Jobs: 'I admire Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg'

Friday, November 4, 2011 0 comments


Steve Jobs expressed admiration for the Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for not selling out and dominating the social networking space, his official biographer has revealed.

Silicon Valley grandees to attend Stanford memorial service for Steve Jobs
Image 1 of 2
Steve Jobs in 2007 holding the iPhone Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty Images
Steve Jobs expressed admiration for the Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for not selling out and dominating the social networking space, his official biographer has revealed. According to Walter Isaacson, the Apple chief spoke about the young technology entrepreneur with respect.
Jobs told his biographer: “We talk about social networks in the plural, but I don’t see anybody other than Facebook out there. Just Facebook, They are dominating this. I admire Mark Zuckerberg . . . for not selling out, for wanting to make a company. I admire that a lot.”
These kind words were a stark contrast to the ones he reserved for the likes of Microsoft founder Bill Gates or for Google.
In the official biography, which is out today in the US, Jobs accused Gates of being “unimaginative”, saying: “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology."
He also vowed to destroy Android, Google’s rival mobile phone operation.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” he told Isaacson.
“I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
However, in the outtakes of the CBS 60 Minute interview with Isaacson, the author revealed Jobs’s admiration for Zuckerberg.
When Jobs passed away, the Facebook founder and chief posted a message on his Facebook profile paying tribute to the late Apple founder.
He wrote: “Steve, thank you for being a mentor and a friend. Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world. I will miss you.”
Many have drawn comparisons between the two entrepreneurs, both of whom dropped out of college and ended up founding huge technology companies in their 20s.


Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson: review

0 comments


Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson: review

The official biography of Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson is fascinating for its honest portrait of a single-minded visionary, finds Tim Martin.


Visionary: Steve Jobs launching the MacBook Air in 2008
Visionary: Steve Jobs launching the MacBook Air in 2008 





















One passage from Walter Isaacson’s eyewateringly frank biography of Steve Jobs could well stand as the book’s epigraph. In 2008, with Jobs already in the grip of the pancreatic cancer that would kill him,Fortune magazine began preparing a story on Apple’s mysterious,cult-inspiring figurehead. In unsparing detail, the piece recounted Jobs’s legendary “personal abuses”: his vicious tantrums, his habit of reducing employees to tears, his binary view of a world in which people were either “heroes” or “s---heads”, and his habit of parking his Mercedes in disabled parking spots. On hearing of the article, Jobs peremptorily called Fortune’s managing editor to Apple HQ in Cupertino, California, to demand that it be spiked. Leaning into the man’s face and fixing him with his unblinking stare, Jobs said: “So, you’ve uncovered the fact that I’m an asshole. Why is that news?”
Steve Jobs: the Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson
Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson
This is an authorised biography, commissioned by Jobs shortly after he was diagnosed with cancer in 2003. Given Jobs’s controlling nature and his often vicious defence of his privacy, there were grounds for fear that the official life might be an in-house whitewash, another example of the famous “reality distortion field” that Apple employees felt surrounded their boss.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Jobs, reports Isaacson, maintained that he had “no skeletons in his closet that can’t be allowed out”. He didn’t ask to read the book, though he cavilled about the cover design, and he encouraged his biographer not only to continue grilling him on his deathbed, but to speak as extensively as possible to friends and enemies.
The result is striking: though Isaacson deeply admires his subject’s achievements, they are in constant danger of being eclipsed by the arresting ghastliness of the character that accompanied them. Because Jobs, as this account mercilessly attests, could be a world-class asshole: and after the gushing obituaries, breathless tributes and comparisons to Leonardo, Edison and Elvis that attended his death this month, that is news.
Jobs’s faith in the “power of the will to bend reality” seems to have instilled itself early, fortified by what Isaacson calls a “craziness of the cultivated sort”. Even in the permissive atmosphere of Seventies California, he cut a peculiar figure, padding everywhere in robes and bare feet and deploying a sequence of mannerisms — silences, bursts of energetic speech, and a penetrating glare — that were calculated to unnerve. When meeting people, one friend recalls, “he would stare into their f---ing eyeballs, ask some question, and want a response without the other person averting their eyes”.
The world bent obligingly to his will. He got his first job with the arcade game company Atari by walking into their lobby and refusing to leave until someone hired him. He commissioned his friend Steve Wozniakto design the circuits for the legendary arcade game Breakout, then stiffed him on the commission. In the offices of the fledgling Apple Computer, Inc, he exercised his “instinct to control”, turning down designs for circuit boards because the wires — invisible to the consumer — were not straight enough. Soaking his bare feet in the lavatory, stalking the halls “smelling like a bum” and greeting the efforts of his new employees with a hostile stare and the comment “That design looks like shit”, the 21-year-old CEO was determined, in his own words, to “make a dent in the universe”.
He was worth $256 million by the age of 25. He turned a company founded in a garage into one of the most valuable in the world. He seized on the ideas of others — the graphical user interface for desktop computing, Pixar’s animation division, the MP3 player — and transformed them into things the public wanted, before it knew it wanted them. He was, one former employee noted, “so weirdly charismatic that you almost had to get deprogrammed after you talked to him”, and he rode roughshod over employees, friends and lovers. “I could see,” he once said, “what the future of computing was destined to be”: and he devoted his life and much of the happiness of those around him to making it happen.
His hiring was as brutal as his firing: “Everything you’ve done in your life is s---,” he told one prospective employee, “so why don’t you come and work for me?” One manager said the only way she could get through her routine consultations with him was to “pretend I’m already dead”.
Yet colleagues at Apple maintained that such abrasive behaviour, coupled with Jobs’s inflexible refusal to take no for an answer, forced them into doing the best work of their lives. “We learned to accept ‘This is s---’ as a code that meant ‘Tell me why this is the best way to do it’,” reports one.
If such accounts carry a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, the efficiency of the results speaks for itself. “Don’t be afraid,” Jobs would say, gazing deep into his interlocutor’s eyes. “Yes, you can do it. Get your mind around it. You can do it.” They would.
Isaacson organises his material well and writes with a pacy, demotic style, though the speed with which this book was rushed out after Jobs’s death is occasionally noticeable at the copy-editing level. There are moments of poor discrimination — a sterner editorial eye on the segments about office design might have been desirable, for example — and Isaacson’s choice of rousing chapter titles from Shakespeare, Dylan, Yeats and the Beatles seems laughably pompous, as when he offers an account of Jobs’s return to Apple in the Nineties under the title “The Second Coming: What Rough Beast, Its Hour Come Round at Last”.
Taken as a whole, though, this is a riveting book, with as much to say about the transformation of modern life in the information age as about its supernaturally gifted and driven subject for whom “a person was either a hero or a bozo, a product was either amazing or s---” but who “could be stymied by things that were more complex, shaded or nuanced: getting married, buying the right sofa, committing to run a company”.
In the end we can’t help but agree with Isaacson’s assessment: “Was he smart? No, not exceptionally. Instead, he was a genius.”
by Walter Isaacson
627pp, Little Brown Buy now for T £23 (plus £1.25 P&P) fromTelegraph Books
(RRP £25 eBook £12.99)

Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Android

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 0 comments


Steve Jobs vowed to “destroy” the Android mobile operating system, created by Google to rival Apple's iOS, viewing it as “grand theft”, according to his official biographer.


Steve Jobs threatened to 'go thermonuclear' against Android 

The Apple co-founder, who died earlier this month of a rare form of pancreatic cancer, was enraged by Google’s software, which is now the bestselling smartphone operating system.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” he told Walter Isaacson, the author of an official biography to be published in the United States next week.

“I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Apple has been engaged in a tit-for-tat patent battle with Google’s manufacturing partners, such as Samsung, for over a year. His official biography is the first time Mr Jobs personal anger over the dispute has been revealed, however.

Apple has alleged that Samsung’s smartphones and tablets are “slavish” copies of the iPhone and iPad. It recently obtained an injunction in Germany that bans sales of the Galaxy tab 10.1, Samsung’s iPad rival, which runs Android.

The iPhone maker has also targeted HTC and Motorola, which Google bought in August for $12.5bn. That move was widely seen as an attempt to defend Android from intellectual property lawsuits by acquiring Motorola’s extensive patent portfolio.

Hostilities between Apple and Google stretches back to 2007. The iPhone was unveiled in January, and kickstarted the smartphone revolution. In November, however, Google announced Android, its rival to iOS, which it would offer free to manufacturers.

At the time Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, sat on Apple’s board. He resigned in 2009 as the two firms became increasingly fierce rivals.

According to Mr Isaacson, Mr Jobs was particularly enraged by an Android phone released by HTC in January 2010, the Google-branded Nexus One. It turned Google into a smartphone brand in its own right and included many iPhone-like features such as a multi-touch screen, prompting an "expletive-laced rant" from the Apple co-founder.

In March 2010 Mr Jobs and Mr Schmidt were pictured at a coffee meeting in Palo Alto. Referring to Apple’s patent infringement claims against the HTC handset, Mr Jobs reportedly told Mr Schmidt: "I don't want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it.

“I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."
With Apple's new chief executive Tim Cook pledged to stick to Mr Jobs' strategy, and Android looking more like iOS than ever, there seems little prospect of the dispute cooling.

Mr Isaacson’s book also details how Mr Jobs put off potentially-life-saving surgery for nine months in favour of alternative treatments such as special diets and visits to spiritualists.

 
CrackleTech © 2011 | Designed by WetCanvas Inc.