Manhattan (well, it was just New York at the time) and Brooklyn were their own cities. Also, each NYC borough is in its own county (Manhattan --> New York County, Queens --> Queens County, Brooklyn --> Kings County, Bronx --> Bronx County, Staten Island --> Richmond County).
Speculation on Steve Jobs' successor strikes me as, well, pointless. The dynamic that drives Apple today is very much the same dynamic that drove it at the start: Woz and Jobs. We saw, in the late 80s and early to mid 90s what happens when the "Jobs" half of that dynamic is not there. The "Woz" dynamic, however, has had a good line of succession to cary it forward the entire time. Looking forward, it seems pretty clear that with a few more years of grooming and practice on stage that Scott Forestall will replace Jobs and keep that part of the company moving forward. Astute observers, however, would also be focusing on Federighi. It seems less clear to me that he will be able to carry on Woz's legacy...but I could be wrong.
Apple with Jobs, but without Woz, is just an empty suit...a really, really well hand tailored $6000 fine Italian 3-piece suit...but still just a suit
I feel as though you're assuming facts not in evidence, here.
Can you explain a little bit more what legacy you feel Steve Wozniak has left at Apple that persists to this day, along with why it has been important to the company's success?
My analysis of Apple's latter day success:
- Steve Jobs, demanding a high standard of quality and providing vision for ongoing products and strategy. Selecting and grooming smart people for crucial leadership roles. Requiring accountability and virtuous integration between product components and even different products.
- Tim Cook, optimizing industrial and business processes, ensuring high margins, protecting profits and structuring clever, unmatched deals for manufacturing and supply sourcing
- Jonathan Ive, designing the physical incarnations of Apple that create strong connections to the brand for customers
So is your position that software engineering has had an equally critical role to what's described above, and the engineering leadership has been Woz-esque? While Apple does make world-class software, I'm not sure I agree about the Woz bit, but I'm open to a persuasive argument.
edit: Especially when you consider how much of Apple's software engineering assets and talent came from NeXT.
Woz's lineage is in the overall engineering talent. Woz himself was no longer a major part of the company by the time the Mac was designed. Guys like Bud Tribble, Andy Hertzfeld, and Bill Atkinson were three of Woz's (many) successors already. It's not down to any individual exec to carry on Woz's legacy, because Woz was never an executive, not even an engineering executive. He only wanted to be an engineer. There are thousands of successors to Woz, and perhaps not a single successor to Jobs in the whole company.
That alone means a lot of authority. Woz embodies half of Apple's soul - the brilliantly unique hardware. It's true his half has been taken care by his successors, but it's still his half, although I suspect the PC-ness of current Macs would be offensive to him and he being on board would be our only chance of seeing an elegant x86-based computer, ever.
That said, he wouldn't probably be a good CEO. But he could be brought on board as an advisor. Apple has grown into a vastly different company since the Apple II days, but there is nobody else who can personify what Apple is all about.
Interestingly enough, every interview I see with him is mostly Apple-centric. Although he doesn't work there for about 24 years, this shows how closely associated with Apple he is in the eyes of the public.
> I suspect the PC-ness of current Macs would be offensive to him and he being on board would be our only chance of seeing an elegant x86-based computer, ever.
In what ways do you find the iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook Air et al. to be inelegant or PC-like?
Every x86 box has, unless I am very wrong, an ISA bus buried somewhere in the chipset. Deep down there, you may find a functionally complete IBM 5150 PC. I wouldn't be surprised if, somehow, you could trick the video hardware into emulating a CGA (or an MDA text mode).
If you ever had the chance, take a look into the schematics of a 5150 and compare how clumsy, inefficient and plain inelegant it is when compared to a years-older Apple II. Then you will fully understand why I hold x86-computers in such low esteem.
And yes, I am typing this on a x86 laptop. I'd love to have an option.
It's no secret that x86 is an inelegant architecture. There was no shortage of RISC CPU architectures in the 90's designed to dethrone x86. Windows NT was even written to run on two of them (DEC Alpha and PowerPC). Apple and IBM carried this experiment forward the longest, but it didn't work out that way.
No it didn't because economies of scale took their toll. Still, it would be possible to build an elegant Mac around an x86 processor, but Apple would have to design and manufacture their own chipset. Nothing would make the CPU elegant, but, at least, the rest of the computer wouldn't be this mess.
But then Macs wouldn't be able to boot Windows. When that becomes irrelevant, we may see change.
Minor nitpick: Windows NT has been ported to MIPS, PPC, Alpha and Itanium, and was originally developed for the Intel 860 (though that version was never sold). Legend says there were Intergraph Clipper and SPARC ports too. If Microsoft pulls off the ARM release of Windows 8, that will be one more architecture with a Windows NT port.
Here's what I find most interesting about what has happened to the middle-class in America:
When the middle-class in America was booming, you would have had to be crazy to leave America. Good job. Nice car. Family and a house? You're set! Why leave?
Another way of viewing what has happened in the US over the past 20 years or so, is that the US middle-class is falling back to earth. Now the average middle-class family in America could move to just about anywhere in Europe and enjoy a pretty similar lifestyle to what they currently have in the US. Sure, gas is still more expensive and clothing is still a bit pricy, but it's nothing like it was in the 80s and early 90s. (I still remember seeing electric razors advertised for the equivalent of $150 on my first trip to Germany when the equivalent model in the US would've cost no more than $50.)
Take that one step further, and the average American family could now potentially consider a move to one of the BRIC or CIVITS nations, and they would find themselves with only slightly less access to the luxuries they might expect in the US.
Why is this important? Because I think that for the first time in the history of human kind, we might just be reaching the point where the choice of where to live and work could be made based solely on things like the climate or the culture instead of on things like "Can I eat?" or "Will I have a roof over my head?"
This is a very consumerist outlook (you're American, no?)
I don't think many people in Europe spent a large amount of time wishing they lived in the US, I don't think many do now. Europe is not some sub-standard America. When the pound was strong (2:1 against the dollar), British people could come to the US and have comparable, if not better, buying power than Americans. There was not a large number of people wishing they could live in the US. Nice place to visit, though.
Consuming stuff, and attaining status based on it, is not unique to America, but my experience shows its more highly-prized. It's a good, visual metric for your progression, and I get that. When I lived in New Zealand, it was positively brutal to be a consumer of much of anything. I was on an above average wage (as my first job), and I still couldn't really afford much in the way of furniture or electronics. However, my quality of life was so good, it didn't matter. They had a wonderful community, a relaxed working atmosphere, and good people.
Americans could move to NZ tomorrow (particularly those in IT). You're trading in one idealism for another, but it certainly never had anything to do with "Can I eat?" or "Will I have a roof over my head?" but "What do I value?"
Personally, as a Brit, I'm quite enamored with burritos, Costco, and sunshine, so I like it here in CA. But that's a choice I made, and it never had anything to do with how much money I have.
When the middle-class in America was booming, you would have had to be crazy to leave America. Good job. Nice car. Family and a house?
Lack of old culture? Lack of proper healthcare for everyone? Lack of decent unemployment benefits? Being stuck in your own little bubble? (No tastful bread? ;))
Do not misunderstand me, I do like the US for its nature and kind citizens. But many would never trade their life for a life in the US. Even if they were given the choice of a 'booming middle class life'.
Your comment was kind, so please interpret this as a kind reply. When I used to interpret for official visitors to the United States from China, I could take them to a cemetery in the city of Boston where there are graves that were dug before the founding of the Qing Dynasty in China. Harvard University, for example, dates to the Ming Dynasty.
Similarly, here in the United States we use the ROMAN alphabet, a cultural survivor now more than 2,000 years old, and the Indo-Arabic decimal place-value numeral system (just as much of a new upstart in Europe as it is for any American), and Gregorian chant and other music that precedes the use of musical notation anywhere in the world. We have plenty of old culture here.
The United States also has new culture such as ragtime, jazz (various genres), blues, soul, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, and hip-hop music that compare favorably in the aggregate to traditional music from anywhere in the world, broadcast media and motion pictures that were largely invented here but now enjoyed around the world, and this cool thing called the Internet that links all of us together on Hacker News.
Your point is well taken. A lot of countries offer a lot of interesting lifestyle features. I would return to Taiwan (where I met my wife, and where I last lived a decade ago) at the drop of a hat. My oldest son is very interested in living in Norway, a land my ancestors left for Minnesota a century and a half ago. It's wonderful that more and more what country a person lives in is a matter of choice rather than solely a matter of birth. The trade-offs involved in living in one country rather than another involve many interesting incommeasurable issues.
Harvard University, for example, dates to the Ming Dynasty.
I do not disagree that there are no traces of old culture. However, go to any random city in, say Europe, the middle east, or Asia. Chances are high that you will easily find artifacts from the roman age until now. Most of the US is new, in many cities you'll have to work hard to find something older than one hundred or two hundred years old. This is not a criticism, but many people appreciate cities and artifacts that are old ;).
Also, with respect to culture in the other sense, the difference is huge. US city centers tend to be boring (with notable exceptions such as New York), since much of the activity is in the outskirts, and are only reachable by car. Compare this to many other countries, where city centres are cramped with pubs, small theaters, etc, and people tend to hang around until the early morning. I liked some cities int this respect (e.g. Portland), but in comparison it's still a bit dull.
The United States also has new culture such as ragtime, jazz (various genres), blues, soul, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, and hip-hop music that compare favorably in the aggregate to traditional music from anywhere in the world,
It's just marketed a whole lot better. E.g. I am into jazz mostly, and American musicians are the most well-known. But Europe had (and still has) a lively avant-garde scene, which was at least as progressive is the scene in the US. In Africa, mostly isolated and in parallel, what resembles modern jazz developed (e.g. check out the excellent Ethipiques series). One good example is Getatchew Mekurya from Ethiopia, who developed his own weird flavor of jazz, that sprung directly from traditional ethiopian music. Anyway, I digress. The rest of the world had thriving and progressive music scenes, but often failed to package is for mass consumption.
broadcast media and motion pictures that were largely invented here
Are you kidding? Ever heard of Nosferatu, Battleship Potempkin, Le voyage dans la lune?
but now enjoyed around the world
Hollywood movies are often looked down upon as superficial, but 'ok if you want something easy'.
and this cool thing called the Internet that links all of us together on Hacker News.
True, ARPAnet was invented in the US, but the 'interface' that we all use was invented by a Brit in Geneva ;). Sure, it had its precursors, but the point is, that in contrast to popular belief, the US did not bring us to modernism. It's a collective contribution.
Actually, let me just say on the bread issue, that Meijer's Pan Bigio is the best bread I've had in America and every bit as good as most European bread. It's revolutionized our life since they introduced it.
The rest, I agree with. It's important to highlight progress when it's made, though.
As recently as the 1990s, the USA had the highest standard of living in the world.
Since then, America has stagnated and thrown its creativity into foreign wars, over-leveraged mansions, and corporate welfare. Barriers to innovation and competition have proliferated in our last leading industries with RIAA, MPAA, and software patents. The effects of building oil-dependent infrastructure have come home to roost with peak oil arriving in 2005.
The result is that America now offers about the fifteenth highest standard of living in the world. We still have a much nicer place to live than China or Brazil or Russia, of course; there are over 200 countries in the world so fifteenth is in the top 10%. For the first time, though, America has been definitively passed by France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, and other top quality of life nations.
The New York Times this week reported that Mexican illegals are now finding they have a better quality of life returning home to Mexico. [1] That doesn't mean our quality of life has dropped below Mexico's; it means the premium for being illegal is now greater than America's advantage at the margin. There are even some classes, such as college educated middle income professionals, where quality of life in wealthier parts of Mexico is already objectively higher than in many parts of the USA. (Mexico is probably about 35th in worldwide material quality of life)
Oil prices are still rising, congress is intent on more and more protectionism and supporting nationalized companies like GM, housing prices are still not rational, the banking sector is a more deeply entrenched oligopoly, old line monopolies that want to leach on the creative industries of coastal California by blocking broadband expansion and running patent shakedowns are in charge of the courts, it's still illegal to build the kind of low-oil walkable sustainable neighborhoods that would reduce oil import dependence as we aim for $10 or $20 a gallon gas, affordable local and high speed rail is still prohibited by federal (FRA) regulations that prohibit European and Japanese innovations here, congress and the president are playing chicken with national finances instead of trying to fix them, occupational licensing is on the rise, and I haven't even mentioned health care.
I'm not saying you should look into getting that Mexican work visa now and beat the rush. America has many advantages still. The state universities are the best in the world, the business climate is generally supportive more than parasitic or bureaucratic (a surprisingly rare thing in other nations), the labor market is still relatively flexible, the nation is a uniquely large market united by a common language and currency, the dollar is stable (for now), we have the best natural open land preserves in the world, and the people are entrepreneurial.
We're not going back to undisputed number one but America can do fine among equals. If you want to go somewhere else though, you don't have to give up your income and luxuries anymore; just don't expect to lord your superior citizenship over the locals who are -- on average -- richer than you are.
On the downside, if you can find exactly what you have here, somewhere else, the cohesiveness of "here" will dissolve, community spirit will be lost and the desire to defend what you have will dissipate. Why spill blood defending This Land when That Land over there is just as good?
I'm a pretty solitary guy most of the time, but I do feel we stand to lose a lot if the sense of "we have something special here, we need to cultivate and protect it accordingly" vanished.
It's a poignant reminder of just how young our field is that we are mourning the loss of some true early pioneers. Imagine if you were a physicist just learning of the passing of Newton? It's also a reminder to value the experience and wisdom of those who are still here with us...
Yep this is a great question. I don't think it is ever to late. Just like any job/skill there must be a commitment that must follow. Programming is something that is nothing more than another job it just so happends that many people start young as a hobby. I don't think this means anything but that they got a slight head start. I like you started programing later in life and I'm 33. I have been studying programing and am getting my degree in software engineering in a month... As far as my degree is concerned, I have not really studied programming exclusively until my last 30 credit hours (there was alot of system admin, network, and OS stuff prior on top of a few basic programming)which lands around the time I was 31ish. Most of the stuff I could have learned on my own without a degree. I recenlty got my first job as a .net programmer at 33. I would suggest that if you are going to web dev think in teams of stack. Like .net C# or vb.net, html, css, javascript, and SQL or PHP and mSQL. This sounds like alot but maybe start with heavy emphasis and priority learning the background language as far as syntax(vb, c#, C++, Java). Then do small (very small no overkill) projects developing a test database, test website, and so on. I suggest this approach cause you will be focused on the backend programming language and developing skill while incrementally building comfort for a tiered based environment. You can focus on learning the html, javascript and sql slowly overtime and not at the same pace as the background language of your choice. This is okay because in a 1yr or so you will be able to code effectively for backend and have comfort with the rest of the abstraction. This approach has worked for me and if for me anyone can do it!
This last post was directed toward the original post. I just could not find anywhere to respond the originator of the topic but only to the responders on the post.:)
Anyway, call me mad, but we are too used to believe that each specific domain of knowledge must take years to be fully understood. That is just not true. What is stopping you from going from engineering to economics, or from business to programming, or from medicine to architecture, etc.?
The real shame is that we don't have a proper learning system. Universities are wasting the time and brilliance of millions... the real learning is on the field or sharing with people or reading (alone) good material. And that doesn't take too long...
Wait...but it is the AT&T from the Bell System. The fact that it was one of the spin-offs buying back the mothership probably has little consequence in terms of attitudes and/or business strategy. I imagine the AT&T ethos of old was pretty well spread between all the "Baby" bells and "Mama" Bell.
Also, you forgot the part where shortly after SBC bought AT&T, the "new" AT&T bought Cingular, a partnership between Bell South and the former AT&T. Oh, and the part where before buying AT&T, SBC also bought Ameritech, the parent company of the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin "Baby" Bells, and Pacific Telesis, the parent company of Pacbell and Nevada Bell.
...and what of the other "Baby" Bells? Well, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX combined to form a company you may have heard of: Verizon!
"Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. And if they insist on trying to time their participation in equities, they should try to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."
