Talk:Steve Jobs

Edit request on 7 January 2013

117.195.24.26 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)The biopic will release in April 2013.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Inventions

I think listing those under "Inventions" is a bit misleading, given the most involvement he's had with them was "the look and feel". Those should go under Apple's article, as it was his engineers that actually did the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.102.242 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2013

The article plainly states that Jobs "is listed as either primary inventor or co-inventor in 342 United States patents or patent applications...Jobs's contributions to most of his patents were to 'the look and feel of the product'". I'm not sure what else you want here; please be more specific. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Right people want to know if he actually EVER invented anything himself or only put his name on stuff as you indicate and as the current lede indicates (stating that Woz actually did all the work). We know he's the champion of capitalists and people who think themselves entitled to take credit and ownership of products produced by the labor of others everywhere, the question is did he actually ever really DO anything other than that, or was he just a hustler, entrepreneur, whatever you want to call it. Serious about this but guess tacit result of no such thing (as for example it states about Woz) is best can be gotten. Perhaps some people are unclear about the difference between invention and other things. So for example Smalltalk was invented by the workers at Xerox PARC. The value of that invention was recognized and promoted by Jobs but he had zero role in creating/inventing it. What people want to know is was that uniformly true, or is it the case, say way back when he and Woz were starting out, did he actually make any part of the first Apples? 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We need to find a way to state that he never invented anything, just focused on the design aspect of things. Dream Focus 23:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to find a way to state that he never invented anything? Why would we need to do that?--Matt Yohe (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's clear there's a confusion on EXACTLY what he DID DO in the production processes in question. Maybe that's a better way to frame it but, yes that subsumes what you just asked. It need not be a negative statement about a null set where Gates has the Basic system, Ellison has his first RDBMS, etc., a positive statement of a non-null set as the entirety of his participation in those processes will work just as well, better perhaps. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop debating this. There are numerous reputable sources for Jobs as an inventor. It's self-indulgence by editors to continue debating this. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

When we say that someone "invented" something, we almost always think that they did it all themselves. To say that Jobs invented those products is a bit misleading to those who read his wiki page. The most he's ever done, according to the many biographies and interviews that reference him (Jobs), is suggest his ideas for the aesthetics of a product, which explains how he was able to have his name on so many patents.(Nbanato (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC))

Provide those "many biographies" with page numbers specifically to "most he's ever done. ". BashBrannigan (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't need specific pages of any biography to know that Apple's products couldn't have been invented solely by Jobs. In fact, Jobs' biography by Walter Isaacson clearly gives the reader the impression that Jobs wasn't an inventor of technology, but more a visionary and marketeer for technology. Whilst it doesn't say that Jobs invented anything, it does, however, say that Jobs often was very much in control of the aesthetics or "looks" of Apple's products. Compare it to Wozniak's biography, which instead details explicitly what he invented and how he went about doing it. (Nbanato (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC))

"US patent law provides that whoever “invents” patentable subject matter is entitled to a patent. Thus, US patent applications must list the “true and only inventors." Apple's patent lawyers are extremely careful listing inventors in their patent applications, lest they invalidate the patent. Your unwarranted assumptions about Steve Jobs's non-inventorship of his listed patents, if true, would invalidate all 342 of his patents. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its worded in the article now rather clearly, his patents are just for the design of things, the shape and whatnot. The New York Times shows things his name is on, click on any of them [1] and they all seem to start with "CLAIM We claim the ornamental design for". Just the design. Another New York Times article [2] mentions the design, the shape and color of the products, that something he did, as well as the staircase in the Apple stores, and whatnot. Dream Focus 20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You have ignored the cited sentence that says, "He has 43 issued US patents on inventions." Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. And it doesn't even explain how they determined which was which. So I'm removing that sentence. Dream Focus 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference gives actual patent numbers, so it is a reliable source. It is a printout from the USPTO. Prefix D means design patent, no prefix utility patent (invention). http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=steve+&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=jobs&FIELD2=INNM&d=PTXT. Please stop edit warring. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference was to a website where anyone can upload anything at all. Linking directly to the government site is a reliable source though. And "edit warring" means editing the same thing back and forth, I only removing that once because of the source. Dream Focus 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I take it that Jobs was added to the List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees by mistake, right?--98.88.133.198 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  They list him as being inducted for the "iPod User Interface" as his greatest invention. [3] Just another thing he designed the look of, and even that one had a lot of others working on it as well according to his official biography. But yeah, he did invent some things, just need to clarify it was mostly design and simple things. Dream Focus 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just because Jobs' name is on patents certified by the USPTO, which therefore makes Jobs an "inventor", that doesn't mean that the word "inventor" should necessarily be put in his introduction. Millions of other people on Wikipedia have their names on patents, and don't have the word "inventor" put in their introduction. One example is Charlie Sheen. He invented a "Chapstick Dispensing Apparatus" (acknowledged by USPTO), yet he doesn't have "inventor" in the opening of his Wikipedia page. (Nbanato (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

Do you see a difference in the relative success of their inventions? --SubSeven (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not my point. The point is that the introduction of a wikipedia page should say what the its subject was/is most known for. Charlie Sheen was an actor first and foremost, and Steve Jobs was a technology entrepreneur and visionary. A single Apple patent usually includes the names of many, many others (for example, those who were responsible for the engineering, the programming etc) in addition to Jobs. If we are to include the word "inventor" in Jobs' introduction, then, to be fair, we would have to give every single one of those Apple employees included in the patents that Jobs is included in the title of "inventor" (in their wikipedia opening) as well. The fact that only Jobs has the Macintosh, ipod, iphone, imac etc listed on his page as inventions of his is very misleading. It gives readers the impression that they were created solely or primarily by him. Why aren't these products listed as being the inventions of all those other people whose names are included in Apple's patents on their wiki pages?(Nbanato (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

Why does this talk page have dozens of categories on it?

Strange error. This talk page has dozens of categories at the bottom of it, and then one hidden category listed after that. I don't see anywhere on this page those categories are summoned forth at. Is everyone seeing this or just me? Dream Focus 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They're automatically added as a result of the WikiProject's he's tagged in... pbp 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer, Inc.'s 1997 Financial Rescue

PREAMBLE

The Wikipedia entry for Steve Jobs repeats a statement the subject and his biographer have claimed:

"Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998."

This however has not been proven true or confirmed by any other party than the subject and his biographer. Publicly available government filings suggest that this was highly likely not true.

SOURCE AND ANALYSIS

Steve Jobs has publicly claimed that Apple Computer, Inc., currently renamed as Apple, Inc. (both referred herein as "Apple"), was 90 days from bankruptcy when he rejoined the company in 1997. His biographer, Walter Isaacson, has repeated such claims in interviews. A review of the facts show clearly otherwise.

Reference is made below to the Apple Computer, Inc. Form 10-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC) December 5, 1997 and conforming to an annual fiscal period ending September 26, 1997 (the "Filing"). The Filing is found here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001047469-97-006960.txt.

The Filing states:

"Over the last two years, the Company's debt ratings have been downgraded to non-investment grade. In October 1997, the Company's senior and subordinated long-term debt were downgraded to B- and CCC, respectively, by Standard and Poor's Rating Agency. In the second quarter of 1997, the Company's debt ratings were downgraded to B3 and Caa2, respectively, by Moody's Investor Services. Both Standard and Poor's Rating Agency and Moody's Investor Services have the Company on negative outlook. These actions may increase the Company's cost of funds in future periods. In addition, the Company may be required to pledge additional collateral with respect to certain of its borrowings and letters of credit and to agree to more stringent covenants than in the past.

The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, and continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months. Expected cash requirements over the next twelve months include an estimated $130 million to effect actions under the restructuring plan, most of which will be effected during the first half of fiscal 1998. No assurance can be given that the $25 million in short-term borrowings from banks can be continued, or that any additional required financing could be obtained should the restructuring plan take longer to implement than anticipated or be unsuccessful. If the Company is unable to obtain such financing, its liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition would be materially adversely affected."

In the Filing, Apple reported that it had $1.459bn in cash and short-term securities at its 1997 fiscal year-end--this is after paying $319mn in cash to purchase NeXT Software, Inc.,--and accounts receivable, including allowances for doubtful accounts, greater than $1bn. Note that the often-purported $150mn "rescue financing" from Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft") is relatively minor compared to Apple's cash ($1.018bn) and short-term investments ($212mn) balances totaling $1.23bn the fiscal quarter before Microsoft's investment of $150mn. The SEC filing for the quarter ending Jun 27, 1997 can be found here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193-97-000014.txt.

In contrast, Apple had outstanding on the same date $661mn par value unsecured convertible subordinated notes maturing 2001, $300mn par value unsecured notes maturing 2004 and $25mn in notes payable to banks refinanced every quarter (see below) all totaling $986mn. The only other material itemized liability was $685mn for accounts payable.

Apple had a net cash balance of $473mn as of its fiscal year-end 1997. These figures suggest that Apple during this period had significant liquidity to meet its financial obligations and undergo significant restructuring. Furthermore, Apple's large accounts receivable balance could have added further liquidity had the company gone into further decline.

The Filing further reports:

NOTES PAYABLE TO BANKS

The weighted average interest rate for Japanese yen-denominated notes

payable to banks as of September 26, 1997, and September 27, 1996, was

approximately 1.3%. The Company had no U.S. dollar-denominated notes payable to

banks as of September 26, 1997 or September 27, 1996. The carrying amount of

notes payable to banks approximates their fair value due to their less than

90-day maturities.

It is supposed that the subject's claim that "We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt." relates to Apple's Japanese operation's ability to continue to refinance its yen-denominated $25mn bank note. This small debt was immaterial to the organization and could have been immediately repaid if necessary. For the unfamiliar, SEC securities-issuing registrants will customarily state such worst-case scenarios where refinancing risks exists in order to reduce potential or perceived future legal liabilities, however remote such risks may be.

The downgrading of Apple's credit rating to "CCC" and "Caa" was not very meaningful either. With exception to the most established technology companies, most of the sector's credit instrument issuing companies are rated below investment grade ("BB" and lower) and most commonly "CCC". Apple's downgrade brought it in line with the average as it was no longer a leading company in the personal computing sector in 1997.

CONCLUSION

Further analysis of the referenced SEC document will indicate that Apple was not facing insolvency. In addition, it was still well regarded in Silicon Valley so additional financing may have been possible--if it needed it. This is evidenced by Apple raising $661mn in a private placement of 6% unsecured convertible subordinated notes the year before.

The subject and his biographer's claim that Apple Computer, Inc. was "near-bankrupt" or facing any other insolvency is not substantiated by the company's Filing with the SEC, which contains the signature of its full board of directors, including the subject.

Pdunbarny (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdunbarny (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jobs was known to exaggerate/lie about his importance in things. Dream Focus 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)