Talk:Steve Jobs/Archive 4

Need to add biography to page
Steve Jobs: The Man Who Thought Different: A Biography (2012), by Karen Blumenthal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiepartington (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 November 2012
to change the date of death from 2011 to 2012

94.7.137.223 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: He died in 2011. RudolfRed (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

iPhone description
The section about iPhone 3G says it had quad-band UMTS/HSDPA, but it only had tri-band (850/1900/2100). 82.128.191.89 (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Polymath?
Why is he included in the "American polymaths" category? How does he qualify as a polymath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praxiis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct typo
"Wozniak did not learn about the actual bonus until ten years later, but said that if Jobs had told him about it and had said he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[54]"

I think it's supposed to say "Jobs would have given it to him." in the latter sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silex0r (talk • contribs)
 * No, Wozniak said that he, Wozniak, would've given him the money. This did hurt him deeply.  Steve Job's officially biography mentions the event in detail.   D r e a m Focus  09:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge of biological parents
The final sentence of the second paragraph in the first section "Early Life..." states that the life of his biological parents was unknown to Jobs, but he did learn later in life. It is true he didn't know for many years, so it would be accurate to say "unknown until adulthood" or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.75.155 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An exact year would be nice. He waited until one of his adopted parents died, before seeking them out.   D r e a m Focus  08:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013
117.195.24.26 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)The biopic will release in April 2013.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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.   D r e a m 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  and they all seem to start with "CLAIM We claim the ornamental design for".  Just the design.  Another New York Times article  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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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.   D r e a m 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. 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.   D r e a m 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?  D r e a m Focus  23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're automatically added as a result of the WikiProject's he's tagged in... p  b  p  19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer'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."
 * 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.
 * 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.  D r e a m Focus  22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you presenting this as an argument that the article should be changed? If so, there could be the issue that this is original research and makes use of synthesis. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All of my above statement is based on Apple Computer, Inc.'s documents provided to the US government and is in the public domain. The only exception is the clearly stated supposition that the claimed "90 days to bankruptcy" may relate to Apple's Japanese yen refinancing and is the only remote connection to an insolvency.

The Wikipedia article includes a statement as fact, "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." and provides no other source for this statement than that of the subject and his biographer.

To date, no other party--either trade creditors / vendors, bank lenders, Wall Street research analysts or then-employees--have confirmed this statement. Auditors of Apple's financial statements, both Ernst & Young LLP in 1996 and KPMG Peat Marwick LLP in 1997, and its board of directors who approved the statements would have been misrepresenting the state of the company and conducting a fraud if the company was within days of bankruptcy and had not disclosed it to the financial markets.

The Wikipedia article should either remove the statement or make clear that it is, at best, an unconfirmed claim made by the subject. It does not appear factual and is thus far unconfirmed by any of thousands of parties that would have been affected had Apple filed for bankruptcy in 1997. Pdunbarny (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the issue. Wikipedia cannot use original research. Perhaps others may disagree, but to me this appears to be from your own research and analysis. The "90 Days" statement is well-sourced and can't be removed or modified without a source explicitly saying its incorrect. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not true. The source is just what Jobs said in an interview.  Thus it comes from a primary source.  You need to find a better source to keep it there, and it a disputed tag can be added to it.   D r e a m Focus  22:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The below quote on Apple Computer, Inc.'s agreement with Microsoft Corp. in 1997 and referenced article from Fortune was published Sep 8, 1997, before the subject agreed to undertake the CEO position in Apple.

"[D]espite Apple's losses, with roughly $1 billion in the bank it doesn't really need cash now"

It is philosophically impossible to "prove" a false statement certainly incorrect. One can conclude however that there is no evidence that the subject financially rescued Apple from its being 90-days to bankruptcy other than the subject's claim, his biographer's repeating it and some media republishing it.

It may be said that Apple may not have become as successful as it is without the leadership of the subject person, however that is conjecture and speculation and a matter for readers to decide.

The Wikipedia article's quote that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." has a high probability of being a false statement based on the below referenced article and the US government documents referenced earlier.

The quoted Fortune article can also be found here: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/09/08/230846/index.htm Pdunbarny (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article and its quote have been registered for a dispute resolution case, which can be found here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Civil and balanced thoughts and comments are welcome. Pdunbarny (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The DRN process failed. There is an alternate source supporting Apple's alleged probability of filing for bankruptcy.

In the subject person's authorized biography, Ed Woolard, former CEO of DuPont, is quoted as saying at a board meeting: “If we stay with Gil as CEO, I think there’s only a 10% chance we will avoid bankruptcy,...If we fire him and convince Steve to come take over, we have a 60% chance of surviving. If we fire Gil, don’t get Steve back, and have to search for a new CEO, then we have a 40% chance of surviving.”

The "90 days to bankruptcy" statement from the subject person still seems exaggerated, considering the company had about $1bn in cash with little debt coming due and the director, Woolard, attesting by signature to the company's financial statements that the company had adequate cash and adequate financing.

Since no corporate insider at the company is widely-known to have disputed the statement from the director confirming the assertion of the company's potential insolvency, it should nonetheless be part of the record.

The current reference footnotes 16 and 17 to a blog and CNET should be replaced or appended with the biography as a source. Pdunbarny (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 18 added. Thank you very much for your contribution to the article. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute that has been discussed on this talk page. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue". There is a Guide for participants at the top of the WP:DRN page. Please feel free to review the guide and join the discussion. Thanks!

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jobs did help design the NeXT computer
Some edit warring going on about this being listed as a sub category in the "inventions and design" section. I have read his biography and he did help design the NeXT computer, showing off the parts inside, showing how neat and orderly and beautiful it was, he obsessed with making things look nice that no one would ever see. The design was his inside and out.  D r e a m Focus  18:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't just say that because you've read his biography (and I have too, probably 4 times), he designed the NEXT computer. What I'm saying is that the site that the included citation linked to did NOT state that Jobs "designed" or "invented" the NEXT computer, hence why I removed it from the sub-heading "Inventions and designs". Plus, there isn't an official patent for the "NEXT computer" as a whole system, so I don't know how Jobs can be credited as being involved in the "inventing" of it. Also, if you can find a quote in the book that supports what you're saying, then I'd be happy for you to reword this part to make it clear that Jobs only "designed" the aesthetics of it.

(Nbanato (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure how much input Jobs had in the design, but I believe the section should be reinserted. I don't think we need to be slaves to the definition of "invent". Jobs is closely associated with its development that its appropriate to have the section in the article. JOJ  Hutton  18:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the sub-heading is. The sub-heading is "Inventions and designs". Inventions are those that are certified by the USPTO (the NEXT computer isn't a USPTO certified invention), and unless a source specifically and explicitly says that Jobs designed something, it cannot be listed under his name in this sub-heading. (Nbanato (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC))
 * The spirit of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of information so that general users can gain a grasp of the subject. You shouldn't let some technical definition if a word hinder our ability to create this encyclopedia. His involvement in that technology is well documented and the spirit of the encyclopedia is improved with its inclusion. JOJ  Hutton  19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia isn't about providing accurate and reliable information? What I'm saying is that the cited source (for this particular part) doesn't say that Jobs designed or invented the Next computer,and therefore the inclusion of the NEXT computer in this sub-heading is unjustified. Agree or disagree? (Nbanato (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Jobs founded, created, funded, and as CEO directed the company whose first product was the NeXT computer. The NeXT computer was Jobs's innovation. I've changed the heading being discussed to include innovations. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Accidentally submitted my edit before finishing the edit summary. An innovation is defined simply as a "new product". In terms of the technology at the time, the NEXT was NOT considered "new" technology by any standards. Jobs wasn't the only one that funded NEXT. When it began to fail, Ross Perot invested $20 million into the company (Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson, page 174). (Nbanato (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
 * There you go with technical definitions again. The spirit of the section is to list products that he is closely associated with. Now did he sit at a desk and actually write the code and actually design the entire device? I don't know. But he is very closely associated with its development, mainly because it was his company. And listing it as it is is still correct and reliable.-- JOJ Hutton  13:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jojhutton, the spirit of the section isn't to list all the products that he's closely associated with. Listing anything without evidence that supports its listing is not considered to be correct or reliable. (Nbanato (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Call the section "Things Jobs helped create" then. Seriously, "design" is fine.  Designed the appearance, directed what the operating system would look like, what the inside of it would look like, how it would be, etc.  He designed it.   D r e a m Focus  13:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, I'm not disputing that because that isn't the what this discussion's about. If you can find evidence that supports your statement, then you're welcome to add that Jobs was involved in the designing of the aesthetics of the first NEXT computer! Reread what my edit was about, and then tell me what you disagree about it. (Nbanato (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
 * You want to find a better reference, then do so, but don't remove information if you don't sincerely doubt it is true. And the section "Inventions and Design" means things he invented and/or designed, he not having to do both on everything in the list.   D r e a m Focus  14:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the cited source does not support its inclusion under the sub-heading of "Inventions and designs". It doesn't mention that he invented it, nor does it say anything about him designing it. If the heading was "Things that Jobs' companies did while Jobs was their CEO", then I'd be happy to let it stay there. (Nbanato (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Three people have said it should be there, one person wants it done. Consensus is clear.  Leave it in.   D r e a m Focus  14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why it should be kept there. The cited source doesn't support it. If there isn't any evidence for it to be there, then why shouldn't it be deleted? Do you have any other suggestions that might help us reach a conclusion? We have not reached a consensus.(Nbanato (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC))
 * I explained fine as have others. You have not convinced anyone else it should be deleted.  Consensus is to have it there.  Follow consensus and don't go edit warring again.   D r e a m Focus  15:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Asserting your opinions as fact without the slightest form of evidence for your assertions is not explaining it. "I've read somewhere that it's true, and therefore you should listen to what I say." It is the same as editing without giving a reason in the edit summary. You may keep the NEXT computer there if you find a source that supports your argument. Unfortunately, we have not reached a consensus, and consensus without reasoning doesn't warrant anything. See WP:BRD Also, you haven't actually commented on what you thought was wrong about my reasoning for the edit. That's what I think should be discussed. (Nbanato (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

Darrell_Greenwood, do you agree that the cited reference does NOT mention that the NEXT computer was designed or invented by Steve Jobs? (Nbanato (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Yes. But easily fixed. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, see my above explanation for why I don't consider the NEXT computer as being an innovation. (Nbanato (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Lots of reliable sources do credit Jobs for NeXT and characterize the computer, its design, and/or its software as "innovative". Here is one.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, thanks for the response. Where in your source does it say that Jobs designed the NEXT computer or its software? It's already been established that Jobs couldn't program and wasn't an engineer, so NEXT's "innovative software" had nothing to do with Jobs. I do credit Jobs for making the innovative company that was NEXT, but I question what his contribution was to any of their products. Aside from a few poorly sourced websites vaguely stating that Jobs helped design something, there hasn't been a source yet that details what he actually did or how he actually contributed to a particular product. If you were to search up Wozniak's contributions to his well-documented "inventions", you'd see a list of sources that describe exactly what Woz did, how long it took for him to do it, and how he did it. (Nbanato (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

Information about Steve Jobs car is incorrect
A reference is made in the article to Steve Job's car and why it didn't have license plates.

Quote: "Jobs's car was a silver Mercedes-Benz SL 55 AMG, which did not display its license plates, as he took advantage of a California law which gives a maximum of six months for new vehicles to receive plates; Jobs leased a new SL every six months."

This assumption is based on an article ("Why Steve Jobs' Mercedes Never Had a License Plate") which is factually incorrect. Since Steve Jobs' car did not have a license plate, the bar code with the VIN number is clearly visible in photos. The VIN number for Steve Jobs' car is WDBSK72F67F124082. When you run this VIN number through a web service such as CARFAX, you will find that Steve Jobs was the first and only owner of this car from the date of purchase (08-08-2006) till his death in 2011. The news that Steve Jobs took advantage of a California law and would allegedly lease a new SL every six months is incorrect (this would have been impossible anyways because Mercedes changed the design of the SL 55 during the period 2006-2011).

Screenshots of the CARFAX report with details on Steve Jobs' Marcedes SL 55 AMG can be found at: http://blog.peschfamily.com/2011/08/steve-jobs.html

Raulpesch (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the SL55 went out of production in 2008 when it was replaced by the SL63 but unfortunately all this constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYN therefore none of this can be inserted into the article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the reference to point to the actual source of the information. Maybe he leased the same car, or just switched between two identical ones.   D r e a m Focus  03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a pic I took of Steve's car, back in 2010 - A l is o n  ❤ 05:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which pic? I didn't see any. New worl (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Look to the right and up a bit. Only one pic in this section, so that's it.   D r e a m Focus  17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2013
Please include the filmed interview of Steve Jobs conducted on November 14, 1994, by the Santa Clara Valley Historical Association. Please include Steve Jobs role in the PBS documentary, Silicon Valley: 100 Year Renaissance (1998). Please include Steve Jobs starring role in the film: Steve Jobs: Visionary Entrepreneur (2013). Source: www.siliconvalleyhistorical.org Thank you! Sally McBurney, Director of Films.

SiliconValleyHistorical (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Went to the website. Claims to be nonprofit, but they keep trying to make money selling you stuff, and don't seem to be telling you much for free.  So he did an interview which they took and are making money off of.  He did a lot of interviews, and most you can find free online somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013 - For the iSteve films for the film section

 * iSteve- 2013 Film published by Funny Or Die, starring John Ross Bowie well known for his recurring appearence on CBS' The Big Bang Theory

Raspberrypi (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 15:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jobs also co-founded and served as chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios;
"Jobs also co-founded and served as chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios;"

Actually, Nolan Bushnell bought Pizza time Theatre from Atari as part of his leaving Tari in 1978. In 1983 Kadabrascope Computer Animation Studios was formed where animation experts formerly of Walt Disney Productions and Hanna-Barbera Productions would produce videos such as a planned Check E. Cheese cartoon. When Pizza Time Theatre had financial problems, it was sold to George Lucas in 1984 and renamed to Pixar. When George Lucas went though a divorce, he sold the company to Steve Jobs.

http://mcurrent.name/atarihistory/cec.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxxjaxxx (talk • contribs)
 * Pixar has information about this. Your link doesn't mention Pixar once.  Didn't Jobs rename it when he got it?  When he got it, it was hardware they were selling.  They didn't start making films until after he was in charge.   D r e a m Focus  14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
There is an errant comma in the lead after reference 31 ("Steve Jobs: Master of Innovation"): "master of innovation",[30][31], "the master evangelist of the digital age" 68.55.123.86 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal involvement in e-book price hike conspiracy
Charges heard in court; and related info in Jobs own authorized biography."Apple conspired with major publishers to drive up the price of e-books in a scheme that cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars, a New York court has heard."

It cited a passage from an authorised biography of Mr Jobs by Walter Isaacson, which it said proved that Apple had sought to inflate prices. “We told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yet, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway,” the book quotes Mr Jobs as saying.. (Note: "The five publishers who were accused by the government of participating in the alleged conspiracy - MacMillan, Simons & Schuster, Hachette, HarperCollins and Penguin - have already settled, paying out a total of $164m" ; companies don't pay out 9-figure sums if the charges were not deemed to be likely to hold in court..) Suggest: short mention for now perhaps in Management Style or preceding section (since he was personally involved; longer mention in wikipedia article about Apple the company), follow the court case, and update the article later depending on outcome of the court case. Ref from today's UK Independent:


 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-encouraged-apple-to-work-with-publishers-on-ebook-price-hike-court-hears-8642931.html Harel (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. relax Jobs fans, I owned a mac in college :-) allegations of personal involvement in this scheme costing consumers "hundreds of millions" are worth inclusion in the balance, along with various praise and other criticism etc. Certainly including quotes by defenders is reasonable too (again, briefly here re personal involvement, and at greater length in entry on the company Apple){{unsigned|Hare

Those emails hurt Apple's case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.27.10 (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/10/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE9690GE20130710 Steve Jobs emails to the publishers were used to make convict Apple Inc of Anti-Trust. Evidence in the case included emails from Apple's late co-founder, Steve Jobs, to News Corp executive James Murdoch that the government said reflected Jobs' desire to boost prices and "create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."

Wozniak narrative - please discuss
Hi all. Okay, there's a huge amount of back-and-forth about the Woz narrative re. Jobs' involvement with the Mac. I've protected the article for a day on the wrong version, so please discuss here now.

"Apple co-founder and former Apple engineer, Steve Wozniak, has said that the Macintosh failed under Steve Jobs, and that it wasn't until Jobs left that it became a success. Jobs called the Lisa group, the team that had kicked Jobs out, idiots for making the Lisa computer too expensive. To compete with the Lisa, Jobs and his new team produced a cheaper computer, one that, according to Wozniak, was "weak", "lousy" and "still at a fairly high price". "He made it by cutting the RAM down, by forcing you to swap disks here and there", says Wozniak. He attributes the eventual success of the Macintosh to people like John Sculley "who worked to build a Macintosh market when the Apple II went away"."

I'm keeping well out of the way on this as I have a COI when it comes to Apple - A l is o n  ❤ 23:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw the reverts on my Watchlist and noted that a large narrative was being added repeatedly to the Macintosh summary. There is a main article at Macintosh where this could be entered if needed, but it is an overweight pointless bit of sensationalism in this section. This whole narrative actually seems more appropriate in a tabloid than an encyclopedia with soundbite quotes and someone calling other people "idiots" and whatnot.  Taroaldo    ✉   23:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the point of having a Macintosh summary under Jobs' "Inventions and innovations"? Seems pointless to me. Why not have a summary of the Macintosh on the wiki page of every Apple employee that worked on the Mac? If people wanted to find out about the Mac, then it would make more sense to click on the Macintosh article. (TechArena20 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm fine with the current version. Since Jobs is associated with the success of Macintosh, its best to show he was the cause of its original failure, and then people can go to that article to see all the details.   D r e a m Focus  00:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the Macintosh article and side articles, I'm not seeing any room to mention Jobs actions there. This is key to understanding the person.  The good, the bad, and the crazy, should all be told.  We need a section that showed what he did in various things that made them successful or failed, show a timeline of his life.  Get the full story.   D r e a m Focus  00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that this is under "Innovations, inventions and designs" on Steve Jobs' wiki page. Instead of having a brief general summary of the products that came from Apple, such as the Mac or the iPod, wouldn't it make more sense to say how Jobs, himself, contributed to those individual products?(TechArena20 (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC))


 * You say 'The good, the bad, and the ugly' should all be told.  So why are you only trying to add the ugly?   The overview of the Mac, that you are attempting to change, made no comment on the merits or successes of the Mac either way.  Steve Wozniak's perspective, 30 years after the product was released, and 20+ years removed from any involvement in the company, is not the final word on the Macintosh, or the only word.  --SubSeven (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't just "Woz's perspective", as you've put it. Putting only a brief summary under a sub-heading of "Jobs' inventions and innovations" and refusing to allow the addition of Jobs' actual contributions and decisions with regards to the Mac only misleads the people who use Wikipedia into believing that Jobs was responsible for everything good about the Mac. The good, the bad and the ugly should all be told, as DreamFocus has said. You are welcome to add information that you believe is the "good", but reverting a bit of text that describes how Jobs contributed to the Mac, or leaving the "bad" or "ugly" out, simply because you disagree with having it there isn't a good enough reason for doing so. This isn't just Woz's perspective or his subjective opinion about it. What he is referring to, the "failure of the mac under Jobs", is something that's well documented in computer history. According to http://trevorowens.tumblr.com/post/12432238865/why-founders-should-emulate-wozniak-not-jobs, the Mac sold like crazy in the first year, but sales dropped dramatically after people used the product. "The Macintosh only accounted for 10% of Apple Computer’s revenue, whereas the Apple II at this time accounted for 70%." This, according to Woz, was due to Jobs' decision to make it a "cheap computer", thus sacrificing power, speed and memory to achieve his goal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/jan/13/willtheiphone also reports that the Mac was essentially a "flop". "The Mac was overhyped like the iPhone so it immediately sold to the True Believers who didn't much care about the fact that it was both underpowered and crippled -- no graphics slot, no hard drive, no way to expand the memory etc." I'd be willing to remove "Woz's word", and replace it with official facts about the Mac not selling well under Jobs, and with the choices that Jobs decided to make with regards to the Mac's design and features(TechArena20 (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Along with what Woz said about it, information from Steve Job's official biography could be added as well. His official biography mentioned he refused to listen to anyone else, demanding there would be no cooling fan because he didn't like the noise, and Macintosh computers kept breaking down because of this. They added the first cooling fan after he left.  He also insisted on using drawn fonts, instead of the usual method of displaying text, this eating up a lot of the RAM and not really needed for anything at all.  You had limited RAM already, and then a large amount of what you did have was wasted on something no one needed.  Any product he is best known for, you need to point out that he didn't make it great, but instead did things that crippled it.   D r e a m Focus  00:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like fascinating stuff to add to the development area in the Macintosh article, provided you are a little more even-handed about it. There were both benefits and drawbacks to those decisions. --SubSeven (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There were NO benefits to those two actions.  D r e a m Focus  00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then obviously you didn't read the book very carefully. You talk like Jobs was trying to sabotage the product.  He had reasons for all of those decisions.  Sometimes his motivations were in the interest of aesthetics, and that was something that Jobs always felt was very important, even throughout Apple's resurgence. --SubSeven (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was just crazy at that period in his life. Him refusing to wear deodorant or shower often enough, insisting since he lived off fruit he didn't stink despite what everyone kept telling him, etc.  He did a lot of crazy things.  That should be in the article as well. On YouTube I watched an interview he did with Bill Gates, and he mentioned how computers display text was a major reason why the competition took off over Macintosh.  So he is responsible for that and the cooling problem.  He insisted everything inside the Macintosh be nice and orderly, even though no one would ever see it.  He even made it so you couldn't open it with a a regular screwdriver to keep people out.  They had to pile things up differently, making it less efficient, and more likely to overheat.  He had the signatures of various designers inside each Macintosh, where no one could see it, but he'd know it was there.  He had kept the cooling fan out of the Apple 3, and it had overheating problems constantly.  Should've learned.  They had to force him out because he was crazy, screaming at people constantly, total madman.    D r e a m Focus  01:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, Woz isn't always reliable in his opinions. The Mac was having problems initially because it didn't have any new important practical applications. What made it successful was its use in desktop publishing, specifically the laser printer. It was Jobs who initiated this with Apples relationship with Adobe. After Jobs left, Apple's productive relationship with Adobe seriously deteriorated because of Scully. Second, Jobs was not booted from Apple due to any design issues. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't just something that the Woz "just made up". A quick google will show that the Mac failed under Jobs. " Jobs got the boot and eventually Apple came out with the redesigned three-piece "open" Mac II, with expansion slots." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/jan/13/willtheiphone. Since Jobs was in charge of the Mac team, why shouldn't we put how his decisions affected the Mac on his page? (TechArena20 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

Criticisms/controversies section
There's generally a criticisms/controversies section in most high profile people's wiki entries. Why is there one missing from this one? Could have the aforementioned ebook price fixing, attitudes towards staff etc. Note I'm not a Windows fanboy/troll trying to stir up trouble. The section just seems notable by it's absence.

PJD - 06/07/2013 78.33.235.65 19:18, July 6, 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Actually, sections devoted to criticism/controversy should be avoided. Instead, criticism should be interspersed in the article.  I'm not 100% sure which policy/guidelines explains this the best, but it's included in WP:STRUCTURE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AQFK is correct. While such sections do exist, and they aren't totally forbidden, we avoid them when we can. Their existence is often a temporary measure, since the content needs to be included in one way or another, and the price of such a section is worth more than leaving out the content. You'll find criticisms and negative comments spread throughout this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. Stand-alone criticism sections are biased as putting too much emphasis on criticizing the person as a whole. Criticsm should be incorporated within the article specific to the issue.  BashBrannigan (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the criticism is and who it comes from. Is it from people that worked with them, not just one disgruntled, but a lot of people confirming problems?  Not just some trashy gossip publication criticizing their fashion sense or anything stupid of course.   D r e a m Focus  17:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Arabic Heritage
Steve Jobs father was syrian, he is of Arabic decent... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-jobs-syria-idUSTRE79533M20111006 72.72.249.159 (talk) 10:34, July 9, 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Yes, this fact is already in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that is why it should say he is an Arab-American, or Arabic-American, will you people please stop screwing up the article, we got vandals blanking his death section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.252.156 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not say he was German-American, after his mother? But he actually had no German or Arabic culture in his upbringing; his biological ancentry would not usually be relevant when considering such categories.  He was born and raised American.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is more important to call him German-Arabic-American? 72.72.252.156 (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "American" says it all. His Syrian heritage is mentioned in the article. Since he had no other significant ties or relationship to Syria, it wouldn't be appropriate to favorise his Syrian heritage over his probable dozens of other heritages. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is the New York Times, the U.S. embassy even released a statement regarding his heritage on the event of his death. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-son-of-a-syrian-is-embraced-in-the-arab-world/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.252.156 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say anything about arabic heritage; it says he "traced his roots back to Syria". Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Same deal. All it says is that his father was Syrian.   --SubSeven (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know why there is this childish obsession with promoting one particular part of Steve Job's heritage. His Arabic roots are clearly described in the article. (I'm even adding more sources.) He, as an American, probably had roots in numerous nationalities. We don't mention them in the lede unless he had a significant relation to the land, such as having been born there, or having had citizenship there, but he didn't. He didn't even contact his real father, or claim him as his father when he later found out about him. On the contrary. Here's what we have in the article:


 * When speaking about his biological parents, Jobs stated: "They were my sperm and egg bank. That's not harsh, it's just the way it was, a sperm bank thing, nothing more."


 * Later, when asked about his "adoptive parents", Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents."


 * This article closes with this interesting statement:


 * "On the likelihood of Steve Jobs being regarded as an “American-Arab”, Jandali says: 'I don’t think he pays much attention to these gene-related things. People know that he has Syrian origins and that his father is Syrian, that’s all well-known. But he doesn’t pay attention to these things. He has his own distinctive personality and he’s highly-strung. People who are geniuses can do what they want.' 1


 * Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody has a childish obsession here? I do not know where you keep coming off with that from but you are showing a childish demeanor on your part, what exactly are you trying to make this an argument about? A fact is a fact regardless of whether or not Mr. Jobs chooses to emphaticaly deny or acknowledge it, it is well known he was Syrian. It was clearly made a big deal by how people responded on his death, it lit up Twitter feeds like crazy about it. This is also not a fixation on a singular aspect of his life, this is a logical fallacy, he was what he was, an Arabic American. He is the "Most successfull Arab in the world." and the later preceedes the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.252.156 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out your childish fixation on his persona, you are exhibiting extreme cognitive bias, which is another logical fallacy, judging by your final comments, we have a policy here Neutrality and if you do not want to follow Wikipedia editing standards and conventions, you should just leave. 72.72.252.156 (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to get a consensus before that change will be allowed. Follow WP:BRD. Discuss the matter and get a consensus before trying again. Edit warring won't work. It will only get you blocked.

In cases like this we don't do what you're proposing. In the eight years I've edited here I have never seen it happen. If he had had close ties to Syria, been born there, had lived there, or been a citizen, it would be a different matter, but none of those are the case in this situation. Otherwise I'd be happy to state that he was an Arab-American in the first sentence! That wouldn't bother me at all. I'm related to Lebanese and spent a wonderful vacation there. We had a great time. I have nothing against documenting the fact, and am helping in that endeavor, but it doesn't deserve significant mention in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Impact of Alternative Medicine Use
David Gorski is a notable cancer researcher and critic of alternative medicine. His commentary on the impact of Jobs' use of alternative medicine was also (in addition to the source cited) covered in the book and in the article. I performed a one sentence edit that includes a quote that was published in the source cited. The commentary these sources refer to is here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An excellent addition. I tweaked and moved it a bit to avoid confusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tweaks, much better now. Glad you found it an appropriate addition. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If you delay 9 months before getting surgery, the cancer has a lot more time to spread, which it did.  The link says But David Gorski, MD, PhD, of the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, disagreed with Amri's assessment in a post on the blog Science-Based Medicine. His Wikipedia article says that blog is something he owns.  So they are quoting what he said on his personal blog about this.  The quote was Although Jobs certainly did himself no favors in delaying his surgery, it's impossible to know whether and by how much he might have decreased his chances of surviving his cancer through his flirtation with woo," Gorski wrote. "My best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that."  Did he update his blog later on about this?  Everyone else makes a good case on why obviously delaying 9 months hurt him, his own biographer stating the doctors said they could easily remove it early on, and then this one guy states something on his blog, perhaps without looking over the information, and not having access to Job's medical records.  The only people that should be quoted are those that saw the x-rays or whatever, and knew the condition of it when it was first detected, everyone else just guessing.   D r e a m Focus  00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * David Gorski qualifies as an expert, thus his opinion bears weight (more than that of a wikipedia editor). His opinion was notable enough to be cited in 2 newspaper articles and a book. The brief quote directly from the cited article summarizes his opinion accurately. The book provides an abridged version of his blog post that may answer some of the questions posed. Gorski did update his original post here. This section involves outside expert discussion of Jobs' illness and treatment. The existing commentary in the Jobs article is from Barrie R. Cassileth and Ramzi Amri two other experts who were not Jobs' doctors and from his autobiographer (even with access to Jobs' medical record not an expert). Please take the time to read Gorski's posts (which qualify as RS due to his expert standing and are notable as they are cited in 3 RS). I think you will find it a detailed, knowledgeable and thorough commentary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

why do we have a picture of his signature?
I mean, I can't think of anything that would jeaprodize (I know I miss spelled it, thank you for pointing that out) anyone more than putting a picture of someone's signature online, especially a presidents (look at Obamas Wikipedia page). Then again, he is dead, but you could forge it on a contract dated before he died and say he made a deal to give person x 100% of his income for the rest of his life if he lost a bet when he made when he was 20. Well, that may be a bit far fetched, but you see my point, I won't do it in case someone doesn't want me to, but if you agree with me just say you do here and then someone would delete it if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.18.106 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how having someone's signature in an article helps to understand them better. No reason for it to be there at all.   D r e a m Focus  16:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A person's signature reflects both a conscious and unconscious presentation of self-image to others. Steve Jobs was very concerned about image and presentation, both professionally and personally, and his signature was part of the way he presented himself to the world. Reify-tech (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We have signatures for most politicians where available. Granted, their signatures are often affixed to important documents as opposed to Reify-tech's self image argument. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Reify-tech that is total nonsense. A person's signature doesn't reflect anything.  People that write with their hands instead of using a computer, like old people did back in primitive days, have better handwriting than those who seldom write anything at all.  Some people have steadier hands than others.  It doesn't mean anything at all.   D r e a m Focus  18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A person's signature is one way in which they express their view of themselves. So, I tend to think it has some significance to be included. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never once in my life heard of this nonsense before today. I find it unlikely this is real.  Does anyone say hey, my loop on that letter, or how I angle this letter just so, really helps people understand me?   D r e a m Focus  04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a debate of how well handwriting analysis can accurately determine personality, but that is irrelevant as to whether to a person's signature is included in a Wikipedia article. It's legitimate to include because people choose, either consciously or subconsciously, how their signature appears. Even if the signature has no connection at all to their psychology, it still reflects that person. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it hurt the article having it there? Havok (T/c/e) 10:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Under free image rules, it does. Does it aid in the understanding of the subject matter?  No sense junking up the infobox with nonsense, because someone might believe someone believe you can judge someone by how they sign their name.   D r e a m Focus  11:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I think having Steve Jobs' signature is ridiculous, I will play Devil's Advocate on the subject of signatures in general. For very old or famous people, I think most people would think signatures are very interesting. One notable example is that we think we have Cleopatra's actual signature by her own hand on a document, which was recently shown at an exhibition. The key is that we're seeing something in their own hand, which is somewhat of a piece of themselves, particularly rare for ancient people when we have little or nothing at all. Back to Steve Jobs, maybe his signature will be interesting in 300 years, but at this point we have so much other personal information about his life that his signature adds little to someone's understanding. And the "doesn't hurt" argument is not really a good argument. Unnecessary junk takes away from an article's focus. Nairebis (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! I mis-remembered the bit about Cleopatra's signature... it was that she possibly signed a document with a command ("Make it so"), but not her actual name. But the example does serve its purpose, since her signature would be really interesting if we had it. :) But wanted to correct that that bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

poorly constructed paragraph
I refer to this:
 * "Jobs usually wore a black long-sleeved mock turtleneck made by Issey Miyake (that was sometimes reported to be made by St. Croix), Levi's 501 blue jeans, and New Balance 991 sneakers.[192][193] Jobs told Walter Isaacson "...he came to like the idea of having a uniform for himself, both because of its daily convenience (the rationale he claimed) and its ability to convey a signature style."[192] He was a pescetarian.[194]"

That last sentence... "He was a pescetarian." What does that have to do with the rest of the paragraph? You would be better of saying that he always leased the same model of car so he could avoid having to purchase a license plate. At least THAT is about him conveying a signature style. His being a pescetarian is not a style issue and doesn't logically connect to the rest of the paragraph. --158.15.255.228 (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Removing it now.  Also, its inaccurate, since his official biography shows he ate different things at different times in his life, and near the end was eating eggs for health reasons.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013
it says that "The family lives in Palo Alto, California" lives? ehh.. not any more seeing as he died, that needs to be changed to something like 'The family lived together in Palo Alto, California' you could also go on to say the amount of years until Steve's passing, it would just look better if you corrected this.

Kenobr100 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  -Ryan  01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did that after reading the request.    D r e a m Focus  01:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: The removal of the word "invention" from subheading
I suggest that we remove the word "invention" from the subheading "Innovations, inventions and designs". The products listed under it, the Macintosh, the iPad, the iPod and the iPhone, are innovations not inventions.

http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2012/03/the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation086 "invention" can be defined as the creation of a product or introduction of a process for the first time. "Innovation", on the other hand, occurs if someone improves on or makes a significant contribution to an existing product, process, or service."

The Macintosh is an improvement to the personal computer, the iphone was an improvement to phones, the iPad was an improvement to touch screen devices and the ipod was Apple's version of the mp3 player. So it makes more sense to call them "innovations" rather than "inventions".

Perhaps, Darrel Greenwood or SubSeven can convince me of why we shouldn't remove the term "inventions". Also, why are these products only listed as inventions/innovations on Jobs' wiki page? In my opinion, it misleads people into believing that they were solely the work of Jobs. (TechArena20 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 23 August 2013
Text that should be removed: "After Wozniak showed it to Jobs, who suggested that they sell it, they and Ronald Wayne formed Apple Computer in garage of Jobs's parents in order to sell it."

Text should read: "After Wozniak showed it to Jobs, who suggested that they sell it, they and Ronald Wayne formed Apple Computer in the garage of Jobs's parents, in order to sell it." Or alternately: "After Wozniak showed it to Jobs, who suggested that they sell it, they and Ronald Wayne formed Apple Computer in the garage of Jobs's parents' home, in order to sell it."

TKJ01 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the word "the" before "garage".  D r e a m Focus  23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013 Missing Quotation Mark
Please add an opening quotation mark to Steve Jobs's final words (currently looks like this: OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW.")

Gbleaney (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. It does look a little odd, but it's a direct quote from the source, and the source doesn't place the words in quotation marks. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013
Steve Jobs was portrated by writer/director Mark Neveldine in Golden Dreams with Whoopie Goldberg, directed by Agnieszka Holland. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241493/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Saintbaxter (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to add Book on Subject
Was browsing article and noted a recent book on the topic does not appear here.

The book is "Anatomy of an Apple - The lessons Steve taught us." Author is Ben Klaiber. ISBN is 9781483506975.

It covers a tremendous amount of history and details of the NeXT period as well as often neglected elements of Steve's ouster from Apple in 1985 that I haven't seen presented as clearly elsewhere. 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Bryan Roberts7982 (talk)
 * Publication Date: August 27, 2013. Came out earlier not that long ago.  Google news shows no results for it.  Was it reviewed anywhere?   D r e a m Focus  17:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It has several reviews on Amazon and iTunes, but I haven't yet seen it reviewed elsewhere. I've seen excerpts posted on Reddit/r/Apple. The excerpts are at www.anatomyofanapple.com.Bryan Roberts7982 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2013
Hi, i think (different;)) that could be true to add that jobs was a "Designer" (with a big D!), so i would have to add Designer, simply, but the page is protected, can you do smthg?

All the best! b

Magmarage (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. The term "inventor", already used in the article, expresses it more clearly and better describes that aspect of why he is notable. "Designer" is a rather vague catch-all term that does not add much. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder why iSteve movie is not mentioned in the Feature films section? 24.246.7.152 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The free internet film ISteve is just a parody, not something about the guy.  D r e a m Focus  23:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops
My edit summary stated the contents of citation 50, but I noted it as citation 17. Please excuse my my mistake; I hope this causes little confusion. Cup o’ Java (talk &bull; edits) 02:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs learned about electronics from a neighbor who was a Ham Radio operator.
Steve Jobs learned about electronics from his neighbor a ham radio operator. He helped him build a kit radio from Heath Kit.A company that specialized in kit form electronics. This is when Steve first realized that electronics could be built by anyone and didn't come from some magical place. (Steve Jobs Next Interview 1995)

108.9.0.216 (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This was also mentioned in Walter Isaacson's book. The neighbor's name was Larry Lang, (ref) (ref) (book ref) - A l is o n  ❤ 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please Change which Paul and Clara could ill afford. to which Paul and Clara couldn't afford.

115.188.239.48 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They did afford the first part of it using a lot of their life savings. So they could afford it.  Ill means "with great difficulty".   D r e a m Focus  22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
"He states it showed them that could take on large companies and beat them." should be "He states it showed them that they could take on large companies and beat them."


 * Fixed. I made that mistake when I added that information September and no one noticed it before now apparently.  D r e a m Focus  02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A "marketer"
What does this mean, that he was a "marketer"? His business was the manufacture of computers, not buying and selling them on an open market. Personally I rarely see the word "marketer" used in English to describe someone's career, except as a vague slur on creativity ("FooTech doesn't invent anything, they're all about marketing."). Wouldn't it be less obtuse to substitute "executive", which he verifiably was? 50.136.204.132 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

problems with archived reference
The archived link to doesn't load anything up. The original source loads up just fine though. There is no possible reason to link to a copyright violation, an unauthorized archive of a still existing news article, at all if the original material is still there. This takes away ad revenue from the original source, and serves no purpose whatsoever.  D r e a m Focus  09:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014
Please change the existing text: "In a statement given on January 5, 2009, on Apple.com,[236] Jobs said that he had been suffering from a "hormone imbalance" for several months". Please replace with the following to give a more complete version of events: On January 5, 2009, Jobs authored an open letter on Apple.com [236] specifically focusing on concerns ensuing from his marked and ongoing loss of weight, a health issue which he characterized as his "#1 priority". Jobs indicated that he had undergone "sophisticated blood tests" and it had been determined that a "hormone imbalance" was causing him to lose weight. Jobs gave assurance that: "The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward". Moreover, he indicated that he would remain as CEO during the course of treatment which had already begun.

Jpsanders (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: What specifically is changing... Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request to add books to further reading and documentary to documentary films on subject
McLaughlin, John; Weimers, Leigh; Winslow, Ward (2008). Silicon Valley: 110 Year Renaissance. Silicon Valley Historical Association. ISBN 978-0-9649217-4-0.

McLaughlin, John; Whiteley, Carol (2002). Technology, Entrepreneurs, and Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley Historical Association. ISBN 0-9649217-1-5.

Steve Jobs: Visionary Entrepreneur — a 2013 Silicon Valley Historical Association 60-minute documentary built around Steve Jobs' 1994 22-minute interview. Many of Jobs' colleagues appear in the film.

Wobbit (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you work for them? The last new editor who requested this did. Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_4 As I pointed out last time "Went to the website. Claims to be nonprofit, but they keep trying to make money selling you stuff, and don't seem to be telling you much for free. So he did an interview which they took and are making money off of. He did a lot of interviews, and most you can find free online somewhere." Seriously, Wikipedia isn't here to advertise your products.  Kindly stop bringing this up.   D r e a m Focus  15:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, both the last editor and I volunteer for the nonprofit. We are a small nonprofit that records the history of Silicon Valley. How are our documentaries and textbooks any more advertised than the for-profit movies and books listed on the Wikipedia article? We're simply trying to direct users who are interested in further information on Steve Jobs to the appropriate resources. May I have a third-party mediate this dispute? Wobbit (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to advertise every product out there that mentions Steve Jobs. And by volunteer, do you mean to tell me you receive absolutely no payment of any kind from this group?   D r e a m Focus  09:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct. And may I ask how you benefit from disallowing us to have our publications on his Wikipedia page? Wikipedia is about, and I quote, "... [to] provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information." Our books and documentaries contain original, unique information about Steve Jobs that enthusiasts and researchers would, and have been, highly interested in. I'll see if I can get another user to voice their opinion in this discussion. Wobbit (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your website does not show any information. Its just a sales page.  And how many people do you need to tell you about Wikipedia policy?  Just read it at WP:LINKSPAM for yourself and follow it.   D r e a m Focus  08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You work for an organization that has an interest in promoting a product or service. As such I'm not seeing a significant justification to overcome WP:COI and include the link. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

interview segment (audio)
just wanted to let you, who enjoyed my brief interview segment with steve jobs (he talks about computer graphics) which lived in this lemma for a couple of years and was deleted last week due to CC problems, lives on, here in my private imperium. if you want to insert the direct link to the audio, feel free to do so; i cannot load the ogg-file up into the wiki commons again. Maximilian (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

His Biological Parents
I removed this sentence for two reasons. If you really think it should be put back, the entire code is here.


 * They were the same age because Jandali had received his PhD at an early age.

1. As worded, it makes absolutely no sense. They were the same age because Jandali received his PhD early? It would make minimally more sense to say he received a PhD because he had been born.

2. Other than to identify them and establish that he was given up for adoption at birth, they were irrelevant to his life. It's an irrelevant fact about mostly irrelevant characters.

--Mfwills (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014
Opera : "Steve V King Different" – Lyon Opera Lyon Opera, France – 2014.

Pierre750 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

hg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4400:2F2:D7B:E8CD:7964:4888 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)