Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Rick Walker wrote: > On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, todd reynolds wrote: >> I hope, when Bill Gates dies, and he most certainly will, that he'll be >> memorialized for all the money he's used to make the life a little >> better for those who struggle. It is indeed in ways that Steve Jobs >> did not point his efforts to. Bill Gates has done some pretty >> fantastic things and changed the world in similar ways even. I do hope >> he gets his due, and before he's unable to enjoy it. good thing to >> think about, Jean-Paul, thanks. > Bill Gates has also had an enormous impact on the world (and I, too, > applaud his amazingly generous > humanitarian aid and global consciousness raising efforts with his > charitable foundations after > his professional work was finished. > > But a distinction that I think most people are referencing (at least > unconsciously) in their > tributes is that Steve Jobs always has had a very, very strong aesthetic > mixed in with his > business efforts. > > The look of Apple products; their ergonomic appeal; their conscious > attempt at ease of usage > (even when, to me it's irritating because they become increasingly > difficult to customize) have all > been a huge aspect of his contribution. > > I don't think this single aspect can be overestimated. > > Their has always been a sense of style, grace and beauty associated with > his career. > > In a world that seems increasingly complex and perplexing, his > aesthetic vision has been like > a cool refreshing shower. > > I'll forgive him that his computers run really hot. > I'll even most likely by a PC laptop the next time I"m forced to, but > I really do get and appreciate where his heart has been the entire time. > When you talk about billionaires, that says a hell of a lot. When I was at Microsoft, people would ask why it was that when Apple took a harsh and controlling stance the industry and public accepted it in a way that they never would from Microsoft. They wondered whether this had to do with Microsoft not being in the valley. But, of course, that would only explain the industry reaction and not the public reaction. My answer was that it had to do with the stated goals of the companies. Microsoft's goals were about a PC on every desktop running Microsoft software. It was a goal about reach and about reach for Microsoft. Apple's goals were about building the best computer.(*) Microsoft's actions would therefore be interpreted as being about extending Microsoft's reach. Apple's actions would be interpreted as being about their pursuit of the best computer. The former is about the company. The latter is about the product. The former directly benefits no one other than Microsoft. The latter most directly benefits the customer. And, so similar actions, viewed through those very different lenses get viewed in very different ways. Mark (*) One may disagree about whether their choices led to better computers. If one values customization, they clearly did not. But that disagreement doesn't undermine the notion that they were making decisions on the basis of what they felt would make for better computers.