Anyone reading today's headlines might be forgiven for thinking Gandhi had died ... again.
But no, it wasn't Gandhi, nor indeed anyone of even the slightest nobility. It was a patent extortionist with an apparent objection to altruism, called Steve Jobs. Even El Presidente fawned over this selfish racketeer, like he was the new messiah, or something:
‘Steve was among the greatest of American innovators – brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it,’ the statement gushed.
Sorry, but I find that offensive.
According to the CIA World Factbook, 160,521 people die every day. Steve Jobs was just one, and from what I can see he must have been very, very far from the best of them.
I bet very few of the other 160,520 people who died that day ever made sinister threats to ‘go after’ an altruistic software project like Theora, or ran around suing everyone for making ‘rounded rectangles’ and ‘green phone icons’.
I bet they also donated a helluva lot more to charity than Jobs too, given that he apparently had some kind of objection to it, which is sort of like having an objection to love and compassion.
Or how about the time Jobs bribed the police to act like they were his private security agency, to kick down the front door to a journalist's home, seize his property and interrogate him like a criminal, just because of some crap iGadget accidentally lost by an Apple employee, after that journalist had already voluntarily contacted Apple and returned it to them?
Or how about the daughter Jobs abandoned, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, and her mother, Chris-Ann Brennan, whom he also abandoned and left to bring up their daughter on welfare, and lied in court about being ‘sterile’ in the process?
It wasn't exactly the first time Jobs had lied and cheated others out of their entitlements though: a couple of years earlier he cheated his supposed ‘friend’ and Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, out of $2,150, by lying about how much they'd been paid by Atari.
Then there was the time Jobs (in league with his pal Larry Ellison, another vicious tyrant) sent a nastygram to Michael Murdock (a Macintosh Systems engineer at Pixar, who applied for the position of CEO at Apple), just Two days before Christmas, after falsely leading him to believe he'd won the position.
‘Please do not come to Apple. You will be asked to leave, and if you don't, you will be arrested.’ ~ Steve Jobs to the job applicant he lied to, two days before Christmas.
Yeah, and a Merry Christmas to you too, you evil bastard. May you burn in Hell.
So given the sort of monster Steve Jobs was, witnessing the spectacle of everyone from Joe Blogs to El Presidente gushing over him, like a bunch of schoolgirls at a rock concert, is absolutely sickening.
These sycophantic ‘tributes’ are an insult to every honest, decent, compassionate and benevolent person who ever lived, yet died in obscurity. Where is El Presidente's scrawl on their epitaphs? Surely they were far more worthy than some unconscionable miser like Ebenezer Jobs. Sadly though, it seems money trumps morals, in our money-worshipping society.
As for being a ‘visionary’ ... the only ‘vision’ Jobs ever had was the one he nicked from Xerox PARC. From that point forward he made a career out of shamelessly stealing others' ideas, shoehorning them into shiny but otherwise dysfunctional and DRM-infested toys, then branding an Apple logo on them (ironically also nicked, from the Beatles). And then to add insult to plagiarism, Jobs fraudulently stamped his ‘IP’ seal on those ‘shamelessly stolen’ ideas, then embarked on a hypocritical and vicious rampage of litigation. How's that for gratitude? Add that to the litany of virtues Jobs didn't subscribe to.
Yet this is the guy everyone is now fawning over?
Oh, but I forgot ... he made lots of money. Lots and lots and lots.
So did Al Capone.
Ah yes, American capitalism at its finest, folks.
[Bootnote: Not that I have any qualms about courting ridicule (if I'm right, I'm right, and my conscience is clear), but apparently so many people have misinterpreted my intentions in this article, that the general consensus is it's a sort of posthumous ‘hit job’ on Steve Jobs. Let me be clear that my target is consumerism-driven hysteria, not the object of that hysteria. It's simply that to quash the hysteria one must expose the truth about the object that precipitated it, and in this case that object is (or was) a man. Nothing personal, but when you're right, you're right, right? And this wave of hysteria is clearly wrong, on so many levels.]
Comments
Better get writing those other "more deserving" 160,521 eulogies, buddy. And they'd better be longer than one you just wrote for that monster Steve Jobs.
My point is not that I seriously expect the President of the US, and everyone else, to comment on every single person who dies. My point is if we must single-out complete strangers to publicly mourn, and if there is going to be a great outpouring of sympathy, then surely it ought to be for someone who actually deserves it, not a malicious narcissist like Jobs.
Despite the hype and hysteria, Jobs' only technical ‘accomplishment’ was to put other people's ideas into shiny boxes, viciously (and hypocritically) sue other companies to stop them doing likewise, then somehow convince the unwashed masses to part with large wads of cash for these shiny toys. That's not much of an accomplishment, either from a technical or moral standpoint, so why the fuss over his death? It can't be sympathy for the loss of a compassionate man since, as we can see above, he was one of the least compassionate public figures in society - a thoroughly nasty character, in fact, so why should anyone have compassion for him now he's dead?
That just leaves one thing: money. Jobs (and Apple) made an awful lot of money, and for certain types of people that's all the justification they need to treat him like a hero, despite (or in some cases perhaps even because of) the corrupt methods he used to make that money.
That's not ‘showing respect for the dead’, it's just money-worshipping. It's materialism as a sort of religion. And in the case of those who go so far as to specifically revere amassing wealth by unethical means, it's far worse even than that - it's gangster-worship.
I guess that's why they call it the ‘Cult of Mac’.
Honestly, I'm really glad that you thought this one out, wait never mind! To all of you who look up to people like Apple CEO's to be role models, you're just as "smitten" as the "college-educated" people you're complaining about. Pull your head out of your asses because he's just like the rest of us. I'm not going to be dragged down by some girl I accidentally knocked up, screw that. I'm a man with potential to pick up a business from almost bankruptcy and put it through its finest years of business. And using the term "iGadget" is a pretty clever way to hide the fact that is was an iPhone 4, a model of phone that seams to surpass most of its competitors, and one that gained Apple thousands in revenue. Those iPhone 4's are also about as common as a pair of pants these days, so it's pretty important that some guy isn't running around with a version of it before it comes out, and that's simple business logic. We're a capitalist country, so we act like one. Business is important, so we make sure it gets done the right way, without thieves that HAD TO BE TRACKED DOWN. So I leave you with this message clearly showing you why you should think about what you say before you hate people for simply mourning over someone's death. For being glad that he's dead, that kind of makes seem like you have "an objection to love and compassion." Eat shit you unloving and ignorant idiot. Oh and by the way, I don't even like Apple products, you're simply a narrow-minded simpleton with a myopic view about how the world works.
The iPhone 4 specs are about as thrilling as an HD2. which is a year older.
Well it was only a matter of time before the narcissistic ‘Fuck You Jack, I'm OK’ libertarians rushed to defend their morally-bankrupt idol, I suppose.
I can assure you Jobs was certainly not ‘just like the rest of us’, unless the segment of ‘the rest of us’ you're referring to are narcissistic ‘Fuck You Jack, I'm OK’ libertarians. I'm sure that does indeed apply to you, and whatever fair-weather friends you may (currently) have, but it does not apply to me, nor I suspect a large number of others, especially outside the US (which seems to be ground zero for narcissistic ‘Fuck You Jack, I'm OK’ libertarians).
I'm not sure how the (mostly skewed in corporate favour) laws work in America, but elsewhere most people would not be described as ‘thieves’ for merely finding something that had been lost in a public place. Ever hear the expression ‘Possession is 9/10ths of the law’? All parties involved in this fiasco made a best-effort attempt to return the iGadget to its rightful owner, but apparently Apple dismissed those attempts as prank calls. It's Apple's reaction that was morally reprehensible, not that of the innocent bystanders. What happened next was one of the most despicable things I've ever heard of in the world of business. That wasn't ‘justice’, it was vigilantism - nothing but a mob of libertarians with pitchforks, using an illegal warrant.
But then I don't suppose people like you care about that, as long as the vicious, corporate tyrant gets his way, right?
Yes, you certainly do, although there's capitalism ... then there's ‘capitalism’, and clearly your form of ‘capitalism’ is something no decent human being should ever aspire to.
You've pretty much made my point for me.
Thank you for posting this. The company I used to work for did business with Apple, and in that context I got to learn about the incredible amount of money spent on "packaging pizzazz" features of what is and always was a mediocre computer product sold at an exorbitant price. I watch friends waste hours and hours playing with their iPads, which they paid huge $$ for, doing tasks that my ten-year old Dell laptop with a cell-modem can do, but without all the expense and flashy graphics. Jobs always reminded me of the old crack attributed to Lee Iacocca: "Give 'em leather!" Like P.T.Barnum, Jobs knew how to exploit the American rube, and leave 'em thinking they'd had the time of their lives. What still cracks me up is that the rubes in this case are college educated and ought to know better, but they're all so smitten by TV and video that simply reading is beneath them now.
This is 100% the best article that I have read since the iDeath of Jobs. Good riddance you worthless piece of trash!
Thank you Sir for a breath of fresh (truth) air. Problem is State controlled media will never divulge the "truth".
I'm glad someone has come out and said something sensible, rather than gushing over someone like Jobs was some sort of god
I am not going to pretend that Steve Jobs was perfect; he was far from it. It was the mistakes that he made and consequences he was willing to endure that make him such an extraordinary figure. His unwavering faith in himself and willingness to push himself far beyond the demands of others is what made him someone truly special and someone worth remembering.
As far as his alleged lack of philanthropy goes, even if he chose to donate all 8 billion dollars he is worth to Amnesty International or some other benevolent organization, it would be dwarfed by the substantially greater impact of Apple's promotion of the Internet and free information. Steve Jobs' introduction of the Apple II and Macintosh launched a huge (and largely successful) movement to put personal computers in everyone's homes. He saw computers as more than just giant machines that filled rooms and could only crunch numbers; That was true brilliance.
Perhaps one of those other 160, 520 people who died on Wednesday deserved more recognition than they received, but if we mourned the loss of everyone who died, the world would be a sad place. Instead, we choose to celebrate the life of a man who was truly exceptional at what he did. So, how could you mock us for it?
Every Apple product was overpriced from the beginning. Because of that it never ever helped to get more computers in homes. Commodore KIM was cheaper therefore more accessible than Apple I. Same true about the Commodore PET that came out also in 1977 and was much cheaper that Apple II. Same true about the TRS80 that was half (including monitor) of the price of the Apple II. The funny thing is that Jobs wanted to sell the Apple II to commodore but the he asked for too much. That's businessman mentality...not an inventor who wants to help the world. After Apple II every single Apple computer failed including the over-hyped Macintosh with it's small monochrome screen ending his ill-fated saga at his own company. Then all Next machines failed...for a decade and was only popular with enthusiasts who could AFFORD it and some schools, TV stations etc. His luck was Pixar succeeding with Toy Story which he wasn't truly interested (invested in Pixar for it's hardware) in until people from Disney told him during screenings of the unfinished film that it's gonna be big. Then he jumped on the waves...made Pixar public...got rich. Pixar as a 3D rendering tool provider...again was always expensive and out of reach for most 3D artists small studios. It's Renderman software was the most expensive renderer and had the most ridiculous licensing scheme.
All the affordable 8-bit computers ATARI, COMMODORE, TANDY, Texas Instruments, BBC micro, Sinclair etc....(No Apple) enabled people to have computers in their home. Later the Commodore Amiga was a big breakthrough right after the Macintosh offering way more features for way less. Internet wise I would say that Windows 95 and the affordable IBM PC clones made the internet possible for the masses. Apple for the most was out of reach and a niche product and it's still way overpriced.
For me Steve Jobs was not an inventor of any kind but rather a smart, well spoken investor.
Personality wise he was a scumbag. Plain and simple. Starting with denying his daughter for 10 long years...
Nothing personal, Bob, but that's just a lot of gushing rhetoric with no substance, and it simply doesn't fit the person you're describing.
First of all, Jobs was clearly a ruthless and morally bankrupt individual, whose (yes, considerable) efforts were purely for the benefit of a for-profit corporation. Let's not forget Apple is a business, nothing more, and the fruits of that business are just trivial consumer gadgets. To hear people gushing over Apple and its commercial products, you'd think it'd invented the cure for cancer, or something, not churned out boxes of toys, assembled by sweat-shop labourers (in conditions so poor that they commit suicide), then sold at an obscene mark-up to bedazzled consumers with more money than sense. Then to cap it all, Apple decided that merely selling these outsourced and rebranded toys (based on ideas it also ‘shamelessly stole’) was not enough, it had to attack every other company that makes anything even remotely similar, to ensure it had an entirely undeserved monopoly.
That is not the sort of thing anyone should revere.
As for your claim that Apple ‘put personal computers in everyone's homes’, that's patently false. Systems like the Commodore 64 (and in the UK, the Sinclair Spectrum) were far more responsible for starting the home computing revolution than the Apple Lisa, which came a full year later, was far less popular, and was widely criticised for being ‘sluggish’. It was also an abysmal commercial failure, which isn't all that surprising given that it cost nearly ten grand. Indeed Apple's overrated and overpriced toys have always been out of reach of the masses, reserved mainly for the affluent, brand-obsessed elite. That's not exactly conducive to putting ‘personal computers in everyone's homes’, unless by ‘everyone’ you mean only those people who ‘matter’ because they're rich.
You seem to have a rather rose-tinted view of Apple and Jobs. Claiming they ‘[promoted] the Internet and free information’ is simply laughable. Apple is the most notoriously restrictive company in the industry, infamous for being amongst the first to do things like encrypt firmware (on both Macs and iPods), and are highly litigious against anyone who dares speak about their upcoming products, going so far as issuing subpoenas against bloggers and journalists.
Is that the sort of ‘freedom’ you had in mind, Bob?
I find it utterly reprehensible that people should consider someone like Jobs worthy of such glowing epitaphs, whilst suggesting that not everyone should be mourned, for no better reason than lack of notoriety.
> Apple's promotion of the Internet and free information.
Apple were never proponents of a free an open internet. They were proponents of an Internet for which they were the gatekeeper, and levied fees on every transaction. Just look at the state of software distribution on the iP[hone|ap|od] - you can't get software from just anywhere, like on the free and open internet; your choices are limited to what apple wants to let you do. That's the opposite of a free and open internet.
Steve Jobs was a great marketer, no doubt... but he wasn't an engineer; he didn't invent or design a single product apple ever sold. He was a marketer. He wasn't the world changing visionary everyone is making him out to be, and I have to agree with the article that all this hero worship is unwarranted.
[Comment submitted by a known Internet troll and shameless Apple fanboy]
There is no doubt by anyone who is familiar with the tech industry that Apple / Jobs has greatly influenced the desktop computer, the music player, the music industry, smart phones, tablets, and more.
No doubt.
Few in the tech industry get what Jobs got: that products are far more than a list of bullet point features and that limiting or removing features sometimes was the best way to make an "insanely great" product. He combined technology with art and usability in a way nobody had done before him - and few if any can emulate now.
The fact he did this and is being fondly remembered does not detract from the deaths of others. Your rant there is not relevant. Nor are your accusations... which are bizarre at best and, frankly, rather paranoid.
You are unable to understand his vision... but millions of people around the world do. Without his vision, the desktop computer you use would not exist as it does .. nor your smart phone. And, no, it does not matter what logo they have on them when I say this... he influenced the industry. Sad how you pretend to understand the tech industry as you show off how ignorant you are of it.
Which ‘bizarre and paranoid accusations’ are those, Snit?
Everything in that article is backup up by well documented facts in the public record, which I've clearly linked to, but if you have a specific objection then by all means lets see it, assuming you have any supporting evidence.
"Without his vision, the desktop computer you use would not exist as it does .. nor your smart phone"
Get over your Apple fanboy mentality. Apple did not single-handedly invent the desktop computer, they stole ideas then resold them for ridiculous price tags. As for smartphones? I'd rather use Android with more FREE apps than a lousy Iphone that requires you to pay for apps.
Jobs' vision is nothing more than just making easy money out of other people's ideas and then overcharging consumers like you, who blindly hand over your hard-earned cash for his over-priced over-rated products thanks to Apple's highly effective propaganda machine.
And comparing Jobs to Da Vinci makes me want to puke. Da Vinci was a TRUE VISIONARY AND INVENTOR. Jobs merely stole ideas and repackaged them.
Check your mind. It's clouded with Apple-brainwashing.
I don't see any reference to ‘Da Vinci’ in Snit's comment (are you referring to something he wrote elsewhere?).
But anyway, Jobs was certainly no Leonardo da Vinci. In fact comparing Apple or Jobs to any aspect of the Renaissance is offensive in the extreme.
The Renaissance was the 300-year era of mankind's greatest achievements in science, the arts and discovery, which (by no coincidence) came crashing to an abrupt halt with the enactment of The Statute of Monopolies in 1624. This was then followed by the rise of capitalism, eventually spawning the Industrial Revolution, which replaced quality craftsmanship with cheap, mass-produced garbage forged with the blood of slaves, for the exclusive benefit of fat, greedy industrialists. Not entirely unlike Apple does today.
Jobs was nothing but a morally bankrupt tyrant, not a gifted visionary genius like Leonardo da Vinci.
Yes Snit, there's ‘no doubt’.
I agree somewhat with Homer in this opinion! Although I do not celebrate the loss of a life too early. The pain his family (or any family at the loss of a loved one) is tragic.
Why Steve Jobs was celebrated so much is beyond me. He was not an inventor, he did not think of these ideas for Apple. He was a CEO, he knew how to market, brand products and return profits to the shareholders. He was a great capitalist. That's it! Everyone seems to think that Jobs pulled the ipad, ipod, imac, and macbook's out of his butt like magic. If you want to celebrate a few people look to the following:
Jon Rubinstein
Jonathan Ive
Tony Fadell
Michael Dhuey
Tim Wasko
This team is the magic, not Jobs, he only "oversaw" the projects. Ive is the real genius with Apple! If you really want to give someone credit for the ipad, look to Gene Roddenberry! And for the record, Tablets and MP3 players existed long before the ipod, ipad.
The loss of a visionary business man is sad, but he was not paramount to our society. There are lots of business men around, just not a lot that wear jeans.
Just to be crystal clear, since so many people seem to have completely misinterpreted my intentions, I am not ‘celebra[ting] the loss of a life’, I'm criticising unwarranted hero-worship and crass materialism.
The fact is that neither Apple nor Jobs ever did anything even remotely ‘innovative’, and yet the public perception is that Jobs was a sort of Da Vinci, and Apple is the Renaissance. In reality Apple is nothing more than a morally-bankrupt corporation with a clever marketing department, and Jobs was a unconscionable miser and tyrant. Therefore the fact that he (and Apple) are subsequently idolised is something I find highly offensive, not so much because of Apple and Jobs per se, but more because the idea that so many people could be enamoured with something (and someone) so unworthy is, frankly, shocking.
I'm a little late to the party but can't resist the urge to chime in. Like Homer, I have been appalled to see the Church of Steve-ism convene over his grave like a pack of sycophantic apostles trying to invoke an imagined saintliness in someone who certainly possessed none in life.
Stevie J was a ruthless cad who would have gladly scooped your grannies eyballs out with a spoon and tossed her alive and screaming into a woodchipper if he thought it would make him a few bucks. He was good at hiring smart people. He was extremely good at making a locked-down, overpriced, proprietary, litigious business model work. He was good and bad at a lot of things, just like most of us, and going over them certainly isn't going to change anyones mind... but putting this viper up on a pedestal is sheer idiocy.
I enjoyed reading you article start to finish. Have to say, very well written. I personal think Steve Jobs was at best nothing but trending towards bad. I say this as I see no positive that he achieved only negitives. (my view is only from the media) I also say this as more than anyone he had the ability to do good yet he never took the path. I hope I will be proved wrong but I doubt it.