Share This

Thursday 6 October 2011

Internet Mourns Steve Jobs' Death: From garage to world power, Life and times!

Image representing Steve Jobs as depicted in C...


Internet Mourns Steve Jobs' Death

Samantha Murphy, TechNewsDaily Senior Staff Writer

Steve Jobs Cloud

The news of Steve Job’s death caught the social media world by storm late Wednesday, with an outpour of people thanking the tech visionary for changing the way they live their lives.

Apple announced in a statement posted to its company site that its founder and former CEO died after his long battle with pancreatic cancer. In 2004, Jobs received a liver transplant and took several medical leaves of absences in recent years before finally resigning as CEO of Apple this summer.

“You inspired millions and changed the way we look at technology,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page. “No yardstick of quality could measure your actions.”

At press time, nearly 65,000 people “liked” Zuckerberg’s status, with many adding their own condolences to the message.

Facebook members also flocked to Job’s profile page to share their condolences. Many also took to the wall of Steve Wozniak, Job’s long-time business partner and Apple co-founder. [Read: Steve Jobs and Apple Through The Years (Infographic)]

“My condolences, Steve, on the passing of your business partner and friend,” wrote Bruce Ansley from Baltimore, Maryland. “Together you helped usher in a new era and countless lives have been enhanced because of your efforts and that of Steve Jobs, may he rest in peace.”
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates wrote a message on Facebook to address the news:
“Steve and I first met nearly 30 years ago, and have been colleagues, competitors and friends over the course of more than half our lives. The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come,” Gates wrote."I will miss Steve immensely."

President Barack Obama also released a statement on WhiteHouse.gov: “Michelle and I are saddened to learn of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was among the greatest of American innovators - brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it,” Obama said.

“By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity,” Obama said. “By making computers personal and putting the internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun.”

Meanwhile, phrases such as “ThankYouSteve,” “RIP Steve Jobs” and “iSad” immediately began to trend on Twitter following the news. “Pixar” also shot up to the top of the trending list, as many remembered Jobs’s role as former Pixar chief and Disney executive.

Those in the tech industry weren’t the only ones to share words of sympathy on social networking sites: “Steve lived the California Dream every day of his life and he changed the world and inspired all of us,” Arnold Swarzenegger wrote on Twitter.

News of Jobs’ death comes one day after the company unveiled the fifth generation of the iPhone, the iPhone 4S, which Jobs played in integral role in developing.

“I have always said that if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know,” Jobs wrote in a letter released by the company when he left. “Unfortunately, that day has come.”

This story was provided by TechNewsDaily , sister site to LiveScience. Reach TechNewsDaily senior writer Samantha Murphy at smurphy@techmedianetwork.com.Follow her on Twitter @SamMurphy_TMN

Newscribe : get free news in real time


Steve Jobs: from parents' garage to world power

Highlights from the life of pioneering inventor and Apple co-founder who has died aged 56
  • David Batty
1955 Steve Jobs is born in San Francisco on 24 February 1955, and adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs of Mountain View, California.

1974 He takes a job at videogame company Atari Inc but resigns after a few months to travel to India.  



1975 Jobs and his friend Steve Wozniak build a prototype computer in the garage of Jobs' parents.

1976 Jobs and Wozniak co-found Apple Computer to sell their machines, staring with the Apple I.

1977 The Apple II is launched. The first successful mass-market computer, it remains in production for 16 years.  

1980 The company's second computer, the Apple III, is launched but proves a commercial failure, plagued by faulty construction.

1983 Apple launches the Lisa, the first personal computer controlled by on-screen icons activated at the click of a mouse. But it also proves unsuccessful.

1984 Apple launches the Macintosh computer, which wins rave reviews but suffers disappointing sales.  

1985 Apple closes half its six factories, sheds 1,200 employees (a fifth of its staff) and declares its first quarterly loss. Jobs loses a boardroom battle against John Sculley and is forced out of the company.  

1986 Jobs buys the computer graphics division of Lucasfilm Ltd, the company owned by Star Wars director George Lucas, and founds what would become Pixar Animation Studios.  

1987 Macintosh II is launched in 1987. 1988 Jobs founds NeXT Computer, but it was not a financial success, selling only 50,000 computers.  

1995 With Jobs as its chief executive, Pixar releases Toy Story, the first full-length computer animated film, which is a worldwide box office smash.  

1996 Apple buys NeXT for $429m (£277m) and uses Jobs' technology to build the next generation of its own software.  

1997 Jobs becomes Apple's interim chief executive.  

1998 The iMac is launched, a self-contained computer and monitor. Its design eclipses the clunky build of Apple's competitors.

2001 The first iPod goes on sale in October and proves a huge success.  

2003 The iTunes music store is launched in April.  

2007 The first iPhone is launched. Jobs decides to drop the computer part of Apple's name.  

2010 The iPad is launched in April and 3m of the devices are sold in 80 days. Nearly 15m iPads are sold worldwide by the end of the year. Apple's annual sales reach $65bn – a huge rise from $8bn in 2000.  

2011 Apple continues to roll out new products to great demand including the iPad 2 and iPhone 4.
  
Newscribe : get free news in real time

The life and times of Steven Paul Jobs, Part One

By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco • Get more from this author

When sober, F. Scott Fitzgerald may have been devastatingly intelligent, but he got it dead wrong when he wrote "there are no second acts in American lives."

Think Elvis, for example. Or lefty sinkerballer Tommy John of the eponymous surgery. Or, for that matter, Grover Cleveland, whose two acts as US president were separated by a four-year intermission.

In the business world, however, second acts are rare. In the corporate rat race, if you slip in Act I, you're trampled by your fellow rodents – there's no "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" on that unforgiving stage.

Except for Steve Jobs.

The career of Apple's cofounder and savior not only had a second act, but a long and successful third act that ranged from his return to Apple in 1997 to his resignation this August.

And to further give the lie to Mr. Fitzgerald, Jobs' second act held true to the dramaturgical dictum that as the curtain closes on Act II, our protagonist should be at the end of his rope, facing seemingly insurmountable odds.

Think The Empire Strikes Back, Act II of the original Star Wars trilogy. Think the Red Sox being down three games to zip against the Yankees in 2004. Think Steve Jobs at the end of 1993, with NeXT's hardware business sold at fire-sale prices and Disney stopping the development of Pixar's salvation, Toy Story.
Steve Jobs on the Cover of Time magazine, April 12, 2010 
Steve Jobs in April 2010

The end of Jobs' redemptive and triumphant Act III, his death on Wednesday, could be thought to have turned his drama into a tragedy – but possibly more from our points of view than from his. By all accounts, he retained throughout his life the sense of light mortality that he gained when studying eastern philosophies in his youth.

"We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die." he told Wired in 1996. "It's been happening for a long time."

Speaking at Stanford University in 2005, he said, "No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent."

And in 2008 he told Fortune, "We don't get a chance to do that many things, and every one should be really excellent. Because this is our life.

"Life is brief, and then you die, you know? So this is what we've chosen to do with our life."

And so here's a recounting of the life that Steve Jobs chose – and the life that chose him.

The early years

Jobs was born in San Francisco on February 24, 1955. Shortly thereafter he was adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs of the same city, who had married in 1946 but had been unable to have a child of their own. They named their new son Steven Paul Jobs.

Jobs' biological parents were Joanne Schieble of Green Bay, Wisconson, and Syrian-born Abdulfattah Jandali, unmarried, both 23, and both students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It being the straight-laced mid-1950s, for the birth they secretly travelled to San Francisco, a few miles north of a sleepy, orchard-filled patch of Northern California that Jobs would one day help transform into Silicon Valley.

Adoptive father Paul, described by son Steve as "a sort of genius with his hands" in a 1985 Playboy interview, "used to get me things I could take apart and put back together."

Just as, in his later years, he took apart and put back together the company he founded, Apple Computer, when he returned to it in 1997 after a palace coup in 1985 had forced him out of the company that he had founded on April Fools' Day 1976 with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Steve Jobs as a boy 
Steve Jobs as a boy

The Jobs family moved to 2066 Crist Drive in Los Altos in the heart of pre-silicon Silicon Valley when Steve was five years old. As a kid, Jobs admitted, he was "a little terror." Today he might have been diagnosed as showing symptoms of ADHD – attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – and have been Adderalled or Ritalinned into submission.

"You should have seen us in third grade," Jobs described himself and his pint-sized co-revolutionaries. "We basically destroyed our teacher. We would let snakes loose in the classroom and explode bombs."

The 1950s may not have been enlightened enough to have accepted Schieble and Jandali's out-of-wedlock child, but neither was it a time when exploding bombs in a public school would call down the wrath of the Department of Homeland Security. In those days, Jobs' behavior was merely part of the "boys will be boys" ethos.

A fourth-grade teacher, Imogene Hill, who Jobs described as "one of the saints in my life," helped tame his rambunctiousness – partially by bribing him with cash if he'd finish his work, according to Anthony Imbimbo's biography written for young adults, Steve Jobs: The Brilliant Mind Behind Apple.

Steve Jobs in a grade-school classroom 
Steve Jobs, front and center. Already
At age 12, Jobs met his first computer. HP engineer and neighbor Larry Lang took Jobs under his wing and, according to Jobs, "... spent a lot of time with me, teaching me stuff." Lang took Jobs and other kids to HP for lectures. "They showed us one of their new desktop computers and let us play on it. I wanted one badly."

When in junior high, Jobs hung out with his friend and fellow geek Bill Fernandez, who – fortunately for the future of personal computing – lived across the street from the Wozniak family, whose son Steven was an inveterate electronics tinkerer.

Steve Wozniak was born in August 1950, making him five years older than Jobs. Despite their age difference, they bonded over their shared love of both electronics and pranks.

In 2007, when giving a Macworld Expo presentation, Jobs' slide-changing clicker malfunctioned. To fill time, he told his audience about one prank that he and Wozniak played when the older prankster was a student at the University of California at Berkeley:



When he was in his mid-teens, Jobs and Wozniak met the famous – infamous? – phone phreaker John Draper (aka Cap'n Crunch, so named after he discovered that a whistle given away in the eponymous cereal could phool fool AT&T's phone system). Inspired by the good Cap'n's success, Wozniak built what was then called a "blue box" – an electronic device that enabled him and friend Jobs to make free phone calls worldwide.

"The famous story about the boxes is when Woz called the Vatican and told them he was Henry Kissinger," Jobs told Playboy. "They had someone going to wake the Pope up in the middle of the night before they figured out it wasn't really Kissinger."

The blue box was Wozniak and Jobs' first commercial product, and established the relationship that would eventually result in the creation of Apple Computer: Wozniak would design, and Jobs would sell.

After high school – and after he had abandoned the blue-box business – Jobs headed off to Reed College in Portland, Oregon, then a notorious hippie haven, well-suited to increasingly hippified Jobs.

He lasted one semester, but continued to live on-campus – not a problem at Reed, nor for that matter at any number of schools during the laid-back early 1970s.

Steve Jobs in high school 
Don't laugh – you went to high school, too
After returning to his family home in 1974, Jobs talked himself into a job at Atari, the pioneering videogame firm that was rolling in cash due to the wild success of its pioneering arcade game, Pong.

His position at Atari got him a tech-troubleshooting trip to Germany, which he extended into a classic hippie pilgrimage to India, where he wandered as an alms-begging mendicant, and famously had his head shaved by a highly amused Indian holy man.

After returning to California – shaved head and all – Jobs was rehired by Atari, and hooked back up with Wozniak. At that point, Wozniak was working at HP, but he would visit Jobs at night at Atari to play that company's Gran Track game for free.

"Woz was a Gran Track addict," Jobs told Playboy. "He would put great quantities of quarters into these games to play them, so I would just let him in at night and let him onto the production floor and he would play Gran Track all night long." But Jobs wasn't being merely magnanimous: "When I came up against a stumbling block on a project, I would get Woz to take a break from his road rally for ten minutes and come and help me."

Jobs also used Wozniak's smarts to design that company's Breakout game. According to Jeffrey Young and William Simon is their unauthorized biography, iCon Steve Jobs, along with other sources, Jobs took credit for the design and snookered Wozniak out of his rightful share of the pay and bonus that Jobs was given for "his" work.

The "Good Steve" versus "Bad Steve" dynamic that would mark Jobs' persona for the rest of his life was already in place.

The birth of Apple Computer

Nineteen seventy-five is generally agreed to be the year that the personal computer was born, when the Altair 8800 kit was announced on the cover of Popular Electronics' January issue.

Shortly after that epoch-making event, a group of electronics enthusiasts formed the Homebrew Computer Club. In addition to Jobs and Wozniak, members included such soon-to-be-luminaries as George Morrow, Adam Osborne, and Lee Felsenstein. It was among that heady company that Wozniak developed the first prototypes of what was to become the Apple I.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 1975

Where Wozniak saw a diverting intellectual challenge, Jobs saw a business opportunity. After the debut of the Altair, "microcomputer" kits were appearing right and left, and Jobs believed that Wozniak's designs – one for a color-capable computer, no less – could find a market.

After some cajoling, Wozniak agreed to Jobs' suggestion that they form a company, and that the company should be named Apple Computer. Although the true source of the name remains cloudy – was it that apples were grown on a commune that Jobs had recently visited, the fact that "Apple" would appear ahead of "Atari" in the phone book (remember phone books?), a tribute to The Beatles? – it was Jobs' idea and Wozniak agreed to it.
The original Apple logo
Apple's original logo (click to enlarge)

On April 1, 1976, Jobs, Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne – a friend of Jobs from Atari who dropped out of the new company less than two weeks later (and who recently published an autobiography) – signed the paperwork that created Apple Computer. With an order for 50 fully assembled Apple I computers from a tiny Mountain View, California, geek emporium called the Byte Shop, and with the proceeds of the sale of Wozniak's HP-65 calculator and Jobs' VW van, the company was up and running.

The Apple I was less than a rip-roaring success, selling around 200 units, total. Jobs reportedly wanted to sell it for $777.77, but Wozniak thought that was too expensive, so the price was dropped to $666.66 – around $2,500 in today's dollars.

Wozniak's next creation, the Apple II, was a different animal entirely. Wozniak said it should have expansion slots, so it had expansion slots. Jobs said i shoul run without a fan, so they hired someone to invent the smaller, cooler, switching power supply.

By far more important, however, was a decision by Jobs and Wozniak that would affect all of Apple's future product development: the Apple II would be a complete system designed for ease of use, simple operation, and consumer friendliness. Industrial design was also on Jobs' mind: no screws disturbed the Apple II's plastic exterior – they all were on the bottom of its all-plastic case.

Apple II with monitor and floppy-disk drives
A fully tricked-out Apple II – every geek's object of lust (source: oldcomputers.net

Jobs made one more key move at this time: he landed a key investor and business adviser, Mike Markkula, who got the two founders to incorporate Apple in January 1977. Markkula also introduced the duo to Mike Scott, and convinced them to hire him as president of the fledgling outfit. Scott and Jobs clashed almost immediately, the first of many such battles that would lead to Jobs' eventual ouster.

On April 17, 1977, the Apple II debuted at the West Coast Computer Faire, and – as each and every Apple press releases noted for many years afterwards – "ignited the personal computer revolution."

The Macintosh

In 1979, Jobs made his now-famous visit to Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), a drop-in that – at the risk of hyperbole – changed him, Apple, and personal computing forever:

"They showed me really three things," he said in an interview in the PBS series "Triumph of the Nerds" in 1996. "But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two" – those two being the object-oriented programming language SmallTalk, created by Alan Kay and others, and a fully network collection of over 100 Xerox Alto computers hooked up over Bob Metcalfe's Ethernet.

"I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface," Jobs recalled. "I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life." He left Xerox PARC determined that Apple would bring GUI-based computing to the masses.

Apple Lisa
Apple's Lisa – this one with the notorious "Twiggy" drive upgraded to a Sony 400KB "microfloppy" (click to enlarge)

Apple's first effort – largely created without Jobs, who was soon frozen out of the project – was the $10,000 dinosaur-with-a-lousy-floppy-drive-named-"Twiggy" known as the Lisa, which Jobs inexplicably named after the daughter he had conceived in 1977 with then-girlfriend Chris-Ann Brennan but had never formally acknowledged (although Apple insisted that Lisa was actually an acronym for Local Integrated Software Architecture).

After being booted from the Lisa project, Jobs' next chance came thanks to Jef Raskin, an Apple employee who was interested in building an inexpensive computer suitable for the mass market. Raskin had developed a prototype in late 1979 that he dubbed the Macintosh. It wasn't a GUI-equipped device – that came later.

Jobs essentially hijacked Raskin's Macintosh project in 1981, after it had been joined by such now-famous Apple names as Burrell Smith and Bud Tribble. Jobs shortly snagged programmers Andy Hertzfeld, Bill Atkinson, and others. Job's autocratic managment style was soon identified by the team as his "reality distortion field".

Apple's original MacintoshThe original Macintosh, saying "hello" thanks to MacPaint and a steady hand (click to enlarge)

The development of the Macintosh continued with the team ensconced in a building over which flew a pirate flag, inspired by a quote attributed to Jobs in multiple wordings, but which essentially could be summarized as "Why join the navy if you can be a pirate?"

The Lisa beat the Macintosh to market by a year. When attending the New York rollout, Jobs held a meeting with then-Pepsi president John Sculley, with the goal of enticing him to take the reins at Apple, Mike Scott having been forced out by Markkula the previous year.

At that meeting, Jobs challenged Sculley with the now-famous quote: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?", as recounted by the Pepsi prez in his 1987 book, Odyssey. Sculley accepted Apple's offer.

It was a masterful sales job by Jobs – but one that he'd live to regret.

But before that miscalculation would come back to haunt him, Jobs had one major triumph to enjoy. On January 22, 1984, during the third quarter of Super Bowl XVIII, while the LA Raiders were busy trouncing the hapless Washington Redskins, Ridley Scott's celebrated 1984 ad told viewers: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984'."

Although that showing is popularly known as the one and only time that the ad was televised, it wasn't. Jobs & Co had pulled off another bit of manipulative chicanery. 1984 had been televised once before: on December 15, 1983 at 1am in Twin Falls, Idaho, a town of about 55,000 souls at the time – a ruse that enabled 1984 to be considered for 1983 advertising awards.

Booted from Apple

At first, Jobs and Sculley were a powerful team, dubbed on the cover of an October 1983 BusinessWeek as "Apple's Dynamic Duo". It didn't last.

Soon after its showy introduction, it bacame apparent that the Macintosh was not going to be the instant hit that Jobs had predicted. Plagued by a 128KB memory allotment – low even for that time – plus a lack of expanability, no hard drive, and other limitations, it failed to attract a critical mass of software developers.

It didn't help, either, that the Mac's graphical user interface was unfamiliar to the developer community – although there was one young, up-and-coming developer who thought the Mac was worth investing in: Bill Gates.

Mac sales tanked. Jobs reportedly blamed everyone but himself – including Sculley – for the seeming failure of his pet project.

He also made the strategic error of alienating both his once-friend Steve Wozniak and the company's Apple II team – still responsible for the bulk of the company's revenue – by ignoring the company's one successful product during an annual meeting.

Wozniak quit Apple - loudly. According to iCon, Wozniak tore into Jobs and his supporters during his resignation, saying: "We had a shareholders' meeting last week and the words 'Apple II' were not mentioned once." Jobs was running out of friends at Apple.

Jobs then made another strategic error by attempting to work behind Sculley's back to get him fired. The machinations involved in his struggle with Sculley and his supporters were complex and many-layered – and the stuff of legend – but in the end Sculley won.

At the end of May 1985, Sculley convinced Apple's board of directors to remove Jobs as general manager of the Macintosh division and deny him any day-to-day operating role in the company – although he was allowed to retain his position as board chairman. Jobs described Sculley's withdrawl of support as being like when "somebody punch[es] you in the stomach and it knocks the wind out of you and you can't breathe."
Steve Jobs and John Sculley
Jobs and John Sculley – presumably when they were still speaking with one another

On June 1, in an article entitled "Apple Co-Founder Jobs Demoted", the San Jose Mercury News reported that Apple said Jobs would take on "a more global role in product innovations and strategies."
After being "demoted," Jobs spent some time in Europe, and when he returned to Cupertino he was asked to move out of his office to a separate building he nicknamed "Siberia", where he pondered his next move. Pun intended.

"I went for a lot of long walks in the woods and didn't really talk to a lot of people," Jobs said about the period ofter his exile to Siberia. But then he began to quietly put together a team of Apple senior engineers to launch the company that eventually became known as NeXT.

On August 15, 1985, Apple's stock was at its lowest point in its history, before or since, closing – when adjusted for three splits since – at $1.8125. In September 1985, after another bout of internecine warfare with Apple management, Jobs tendered his resignation.

In early 1986, Jobs finished selling off all but one of his shares of Apple stock. He kept that single share, he is said to have commented, in order to keep receiving the company's annual reports.

The same Merc article that reported his ouster also said: "As of January, Jobs still owned 11.3 percent of Apple stock, a block that was worth about $120 million Friday, when Apple closed at 17 3/8, down 1/4." As of January 2011, when Apple's market capitalization was hovering around $315bn, 11.3 per cent of Apple stock was worth approximately $35.6bn.

In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek on October 20, 2010, John Sculley said: "Looking back, it was a big mistake that I was ever hired as [Apple's] CEO."

Jobs' NeXT step

In an interview with Newsweek in late September 1985, Jobs mused about his post-Apple plans: "I personally, man, I want to build things. I'm 30. I'm not ready to be an industry pundit."

Jobs' desire to "build things" led to him gathering the five senior Apple engineers he had been courting and hiring them as the core of his next computing effort, which eventually became known as NeXT.

Apple management, to put it mildly, wasn't pleased, and started legal action against Jobs for a "nefarious scheme" in which, they alleged, he was not only poaching senior staff, but also planning to use proprietary Apple technology and confidential information.

That lawsuit was eventually dropped, but not before Jobs fired back in the press, saying in the same Newsweek interview: "There is nothing ... that says Apple can't compete with us if they think what we're doing is such a great idea. It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans."

Jobs soon had a great stroke of luck: billionaire entrepreneur and eventual presidential candidate H. Ross "giant sucking sound" Perot became NeXT's principle investor, as well as – as BusinessWeek put it in an October 1988 cover story – its "head cheerleader".

Steve Jobs and the NeXTComputer
Salesman Steve and the original NeXT Computer – Jobs' first "Cube"

The workstation line that NeXT created was aimed at scientific and academic users who needed brawny computing power on their desks. It was inarguably elegant, but sold poorly. However, one of those workstations' supported operating systems, Next System (which morphed into NeXTStep), was eventualy key to Jobs returning to Apple in late 1996.

A quick side note. There were at least five different ways of writing NeXTStep, with four being official usages that depended upon exactly what parts or version of it you were referring to: NeXTStep, NeXTStep, NeXTSTEP, and NEXTSTEP – the fifth, which NeXT acknowledged but didn't use, was NextStep. For the sake of sanity, we're going to consistently use NeXTStep. The same goes for the related API definition, OpenStep/OPENSTEP, aka NEXTSTEP 4.0.

NeXT System interface
NeXT System, the OS that eventually morphed into Mac OS X (click to enlarge)

The original NeXT Computer seemed to be Jobs' attempt to one-up Apple's Macintosh. It was powered by a Motorola 68030 processor, 68882 FPU, and DSP56001 digital signal processor, all running at 25MHz. When the NeXT Computer debuted in prototype form on October 12, 1988, the top-end Mac of the time – the IIfx – had a 16MHz 68030 and 68882, and no DSP.

Other better-than-Mac features of the NeXT Computer included Display PostScript and built-in Ethernet. The full NeXT system included a 17-inch monochrome 1120-by-832 Megapixel Display – Apple's 1152-by-870 Two-Page Monochrome Display wasn't released until March of 1989. NeXT also offered a 400-dpi laser printer that, since the computer itself included Display PostScript, cost just $2,000 – a steal compared with Apple's 300-dpi LaserWriter IINTX, which had a built-in PostScript interpreter that helped boost its list price to $6,999.

Jobs also added a typical 'I know what's best" touch: rather than a hard drive and/or floppy drive, the NeXT Computer included a 256MB magneto-optical drive – an relatively unusual item in those days – which the original NeXT brochure described as being "bound to become the standard technology of the '90s."

There was, however, a bay inside the NeXT Computer for a hard drive, should you choose to install one. As the brochure pointed out: "Its possible configure [sic] your NeXT system to allow access to truly enormous amounts of storage - approaching one gigabyte and more."

The NeXT Computer was a cubical black box, which led to it often being called the NeXT Cube. That name was then officially applied to the company's next product, 1990's 40MHz 68040–equipped NeXTcube, which appeared along with the color-capable NeXTdimension. The final NeXT line, the NeXTstation, flattend out the cube into a more-standard "pizza-box" shape and added a floppy drive.

But none of NeXT's nifty hardware offerings sold well – although some boxes are still in use. No official total-sales number is available, but it's generally accepted to be in the range of 50,000 – from the debut of the original NeXT Computer in 1988 to the demise of the black beauties in 1993.

NeXT System's Interface Builder
NeXT's Interface Builder, which eventually found its way into Mac OS X's Xcode (click to enlarge)

There's one possibly apocryphal anecdote about Jobs' difficulty – and naiveté – in selling NeXT boxes that bears retelling. According to Alan Deutschman's The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, Jobs presented both black and white and color versions of his workstation to a group of Disney execs, hoping to convince them to put in a large order.

In his audience was Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of Disney's feature-film division. After Jobs said that the color NeXT box would put image-making power in the hands of ordinary people, Katzenberg interrupted him. The bare-knuckles exec complimented the black-and-white unit, but he had a different opinion of the color version

"'This is art,' Jeffrey said," according to Deutschman. "'I own animation, and nobody's going to get it.' His voice was fierce and intimidating and commanding. 'It's as if someone comes to date my daughter. I have a shotgun. If someone tries to take this away, I'll blow his balls off.'"

Jobs' reality-distortion field was breached.

Although the NeXT hardware had its fans, sales were skimpy. However, NeXT's Unix-based operating system and its set of libraries, services, and APIs eventually known as OpenStep, attracted many programmers as devoted fans.

Tim Berners-Lee, for example, wrote the first browser, WorldWideWeb, on a NeXT. "This had the advantage that there were some great tools available," he wrote. "[I]t was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already."

The NeXT System's application-development prowess would eventually change Steve Jobs' life – but not before NeXT's hardware business imploded.

The accidental movie mogul

Shortly after Jobs left Apple Computer, he made a $10m investment that would save his bacon after NeXT tanked – an investment made possible in part by a duck by the name of Howard.

George Lucas – of American Graffiti and Star Wars fame – had divorced in 1983 and split his wealth with his wife, as required by California law. He needed cash, in part to finish his next film, Howard the Duck.
Lucas' company, Lucasfilm, had a small division that had created computer-generated imagery before it was even called CGI – the "Genesis Effect" sequence in 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is an early example of its groundbreaking work.
Pixar Founding Documents (source: Alvy Ray Smith)
Pixar's founding documents

(source: Alvy Ray Smith – click to enlarge)

Lucas offered the division to Jobs for $30m; Jobs eventually whittled him down to a $10m deal – $5m to Lucas and $5m to be invested in the company, according to The Wall Street Journal. Jobs dubbed his new company Pixar, and incorporated it on February 3, 1986. Howard the Duck opened on August 1 of the same year, and was reviled as one of the worst films ever made.

Jobs got the better part of the deal.

At first, Pixar was essentially yet another computer company, albeit one that focused on a narrow niche: high-end computer graphics. The company's Pixar Image Computer was Steve Jobs' Next Computer bumped up by an order of magnitude – or more.

Designed for weather, engineering, science, and medical imaging purposes – check out the 1987 demo reel – the first Pixar Image Computer cost $135,000, needed a $35,000 Sun or SGI workstation to run it, and sold poorly. The price dropped to $30,000 when a second stripped-down version, the P-II, was released. A much more powerful follow-on called the PII-9, however, was also much more expensive – its 3GB RAID array alone cost $300,000.

By all reports, although Jobs kept his eye on Pixar's hardware division, he didn't micromanage Pixar's animation creatives. One Pixar exec, Ralph Guggenheim, told Deutschman that Jobs visited Pixar's offices "no more than five times between 1986 and 1992, no exaggeration."

The Pixar Image Computer
The Pixar Image Computer: a NeXT box on steroids – lots of steroids

Jobs did, however, throw trendous amounts of cash at Pixar – but to sell the Pixar Image Computer, not to develop the animation output. It didn't work. Like Jobs' NeXT boxes, the Pixar Image Computer never caught on. Fewer than 300 were ever sold, and the business was sold to Vicom in 1990 for $2m. Vicom was bankrupt in a year.

Although Jobs reportedly tried to shut down Pixar's tiny animation group in 1987 and 1988, it started to become a profit center, producing commercials for the California Lottery, Lifesavers, Volkswagen, and others. Eventually, it became the saving grace of the company – along with the fact that Disney Studios was one of the Image Computer's main customers.

After the head-turning success of Pixar's computer-animated short Luxo Jr. and the Academy Award–winning Tin Toy, Jobs tried to salvage Pixar by selling a mass-market commercial version of the 3D software that had been used to create them and the animation group's money-making ads, RenderMan.

Luxo Jr.
Luxo Jr. – the little lamp that (eventually) helped make Steve Jobs a billionaire

That effort was unsuccessful, due in part to RenderMan's complexity. Soon Jobs had two companies – NeXT and Pixar – both on the ropes. Jobs continued to fund the ailing Pixar through a line of credit he had set up, but forced all employees to return their shares in the company, making him the sole owner.

However, in the fall of 1990, a few of Pixar's top creative began discussions with Disney Studios about using their software and expertise to create the first full-length, computer-generated feature film. In 1991 Jobs joined the negotiations, and by May 1991 Pixar had a a three-movie contract with Disney, to begin with Toy Story.

Although Jobs may not have known it at the time, that deal and the fact that he was the company's sole owner was soon to make him very, very rich – but not before his career his rock bottom.

Crash landing

The year 1993 was perhaps the lowest point in Steve Jobs' career. No, scratch that – 1993 was the lowest point in Steve Jobs' career.

An article in Fortune in February of that year makes clear the ambivalence that the industry felt for Jobs at the time. "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether Steve Jobs is a snake-oil salesman or a bona fide visionary," it reads, "a promoter who got lucky or the epitome of the intrepid entrepreneur."

The article goes on to describe Jobs' last-ditch efforts to save NeXT by porting its NeXTStep operating system to run on Intel 486 processors – NeXT boxes ran on Motorola 68030s and 68040s – then licensing it to other companies. The port, to be called NeXTStep 486, had been announced the previous January at NeXTworld Expo, but it hadn't yet appeared.

"It's always taken me twice to get it right," Jobs is quoted as saying. "You never heard of the Apple I."

At the time, Jobs considered Microsoft's Cairo project and Apple and IBM's Taligent effort to be NextStep's prime competitors – and he wasn't too worried about the latter. "Apple has a thousand software engineers," he told Fortune, "who have realized that Taligent is their enemy." IBM, he said, "can't evangelize its way out of a paper bag."

In this NeXTStep demo, Jobs takes some jabs at the computer he helped design in the early 1980s
By this point, most of NeXT's senior execs had bailed or been tossed: cofounders Bud Tribble, Rich Page, and Susan Barnes – software and hardware leads and CFO, respectively – marketing VP Mike Slade, sales VP Todd Rulon-Miller, and marketing manager Jeff Spirer. "Sometimes the people you hired five years ago aren't the right ones to take it forward," Jobs said. "It's nothing personal."

The previous year, Jobs had courted and won a hard-nosed Brit, Peter van Cuylenburg, to be NeXT's president and COO – and to please NeXT's 17.9 per cent investor, Canon. His tenure proved brief.
After crowding out long-term NeXTers – "I've put pressure on the company, and not everyone was willing or able to accept it," he told Fortune – van Cuylenburg announced that he was leaving NeXT in March 1993, either fired, resigning. Or a bit of both.

As van Cuylenburg told InfoWorld: "Steve [Jobs] wanted to regain control of the company. There wasn't a meaningful job for me to do."

There are unconfirmed reports that before van Cuylenburg left NeXT, he went behind Jobs' back and called Scott McNealy at Sun, asking him to buy NeXT and install him as CEO. True or not, Sun didn't bail out NeXT.
NeXT logo 
Jobs paid $100,000 for the NeXT logo ...

The same day that the Fortune article appeared in which Jobs discussed both hardware and software plans for NeXT, InfoWorld ran a front-page article that began: "Next Computer will transform itself into a software company, ceasing production of its workstation line and laying off a large number of employees, sources said."

On February 10, Jobs confirmed the rumor. Canon bought the hardware business for an undisclosed amount after having invested $120 in cash and $55m in debt. Of NeXT's 530 remaining employees, 230 were laid off, and another 100 went to Canon. The remaining 200 stayed with Next Software.

Jobs tried to put a positive spin on leaving the hardware business. "We understand we could work really hard for the next few years and emerge as a good second-tier hardware company," he told The New York Times. "But ... we have a chance to be a first-tier software company."

In the InfoWorld article that leaked Jobs' plan to dump hardware and focus only on NeXT software, one analyst was quoted as saying "This is probably the first really smart business decision Jobs has ever made." He proved to be correct, though in ways he could never have imagined.

NeXTStep logo... but the NeXTStep logo cost substantially less

NeXTStep Release 3.1, shipped on May 25 at NextWorld Expo in San Francisco, included support for both Motorola and Intel instruction sets, combined in what NeXT called a Multiple Architecture Binary. The Intel-centric install became known as Release 3.1 for Intel Processors, renamed from NeXTStep 486 due to added support for Pentiums.

As upbeat as Jobs attempted to appear in public, however, his heart was in hardware – and he had ploughed millions of dollars of his now-dwindling fortune into NeXT, trying to prove that his tenure as Apple's founder was not a fluke.

When Canon held a now-famous auction on September 15, selling off NeXT's office furniture, manufacturing robots, cafeteria equipment, and unsold NeXT computers at fire-sale prices, Jobs' hardware days seemed over for good.

The next month, Jobs received another blow: after Pixar's creatives held a disasterous screening of their progress on Toy Story for Disney brass on November 19, Disney headman Jeffrey Katzenberg stopped development of the film that Jobs presumably hoped would save Pixar.

"Guys, no matter how much you try to fix it," Disney animation chief Peter Schneider told them, citing the unpleasant personalities of the film's two lead characters as presented in the screening, "it just isn't working."

For Steve Jobs, Christmas 1993 could not have been jolly.

From babysitter to billionaire

Nineteen ninety-four began as a lost year for Steve Jobs – though not for two-year-old Reed Paul Jobs nor, presumably, for Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve's wife of three years. According to numerous sources, Jobs spent a lot of time at home during that period – especially during the beginning of the year.

In February, however, he received good news. After Disney halted the Toy Story project in its tracks, Pixar's creative genius John Lasseter and his staff had taken Katzenberg's criticism to heart, and had rewritten the script. When they took it back to Disney, Katzenberg green-lighted it. Pixar was back in the movie-making business.

At first, Jobs was less than excited about the project, and tried to peddle Pixar to a few potential buyers, including Microsoft.

The turnaround of Jobs' opinion of Pixar came when he attended a lavish Disney event in New York's Central Park in January of 1995 to showcase clips from two of that year's blockbuster animations: Pocahontas, scheduled for summer, and Toy Story, scheduled for the lucrative Thanksgiving time slot.

Buzz Lightyear, Pixar's John Lasseter, and Woody
The three men who made Steve Jobs a billionaire: Buzz Lightyear, Toy Story writer/director John Lasseter, and Woody

Ralph Guggenheim, Toy Story's coproducer, told Alan Deutschman that "Steve went bonkers" at the attention that the Pixar film received at the event, which was attended not only by Disney's top execs, including CEO Michael Eisner, but also New York mayor and celeb Rudi Guliani, plus assorted other VIPs.

"This was the moment when Steve realized the Disney deal would materialize into something much bigger than he had ever imaginied," Guggenheim recalled, "and that Pixar was the way out of his morass with NeXT."

After that event, Jobs became more involved with the day-to-day workings of Pixar. In February, he hired away EFI's CFO Lawrence Levy to take the same position at Pixar, with the goal of taking the company public – and, audaciously, to schedule the IPO for immediately after the Thanksgiving debut of Toy Story.

If the movie were to be a success, the buzz surrounding it would fluff the IPO. If it flopped, so would the IPO.
Toy Story debuted on November 22; the IPO was held on November 29. Toy Story was the number one movie in the US on its opening weekend, and went on to be number one for its first three weekends, then number one again during the Christmas/New Years holiday break.

Pixar's first feature was the number one grossing film of 1995, and went on to eventually gross exactly $361,958,736 worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo.

And the IPO? Shares of Pixar – a company that had lost money each year beginning in 1992 – had been pegged to be offered at $12 to $14 in a preparatory SEC filing, but opened at $22 during the first day of trading on the NASDAQ exchange. Shares rose as high as $49.50 during that day before settling back to $39.
Specimen Pixar IPO certificate with Steve Jobs' signature (source: Scripophily.com)Specimen Pixar IPO certificate with Steve Jobs' signature (source: Scripophily.com)

Jobs held 80.2 per cent of Pixar's shares. The IPO made him a very wealthy man. As David Price put it in The Pixar Touch, "Following the IPO, his shares of Pixar were valued at more than $1.1 billion – and the rounding error on that figure was almost as much as the entire value of his Apple holdings when he left Apple a decade earlier."

Back to Cupertino

After the success of Toy Story, Jobs may have been rich, but his wealth came from an industry with which he was unfamiliar. Since he was a 12-year-old, fiddling about with stuff his neighbor HP engineer Larry Lang showed him, his first love was hardware.

And he missed Apple. "It was like the first adult love of your life," he told a New York Times reporter in November 1996, "something that is always special to you, no matter how it turns out."

Fortunately for Jobs, Apple was in the crapper. The much-ridiculed Newton hadn't taken off, Apple was hemorrhaging money from a poorly thought-through OS-licensing scheme, and thanks to its success with Windows 95, Microsoft was eating its lunch.

Ellen Hancock 
Ellen Hancock
The Mac's operating system was creaky and unreliable, and efforts to replace it were going nowhere. Apple's "Pink" OS skunkworks had been merged with IBM to form Taligent, which eventually produced the IBM-only CommonPoint, which soon vaporized. Apple next – no pun intended this time – new-OS effort, Copland, was going nowhere fast.

Apple's new, no-nonsense CTO Ellen Hancock decided that Copland was a lost cause, killed it, and in 1996 started shopping around for a third-party operating system to replace the Mac's operating system, at that time System 7.5.

Apple first made an offer to Jean-Louis Gassée, the man John Sculley had picked to replace Jobs as head of Apple's hardware division, to buy his company, Be, and its still-unfinished BeOS, which was slated to power the company's BeBox hardware. Gassée deemed the offer too low, however, and was holding out for $200m – an amount that Apple chairman and CEO Gil Amelio termed "outrageous".

Apple's discussions with Gassée were hardly a well-kept secret, and so – having an operating system of his own to peddle – Jobs called Cupertino. Amelio was out of the country, so Jobs left a message for Hancock.

Jean-Louis Gassée 
Jean-Louis Gassée
"I was startled to see Steve Jobs had called," she recalled to the NYT, "but I returned it immediately."

During the ensuing conversation, Jobs was reported to have not made a sales pitch for
NeXTStep/OpenStep but only to have discussed operating systems in general – and, likely, Gassée and Be in particular. But it can only be assumed that Hancock, being nobody's fool, knew what was what.

A few days later, a couple of NeXT managers called Apple on their own, and Apple engineers met with them. Soon Jobs himself was invited to Cupertino to talk with Amelio, Hancock, and Apple strategist Doug Solomon. "It was the first time I had set foot on the Apple campus since I left in 1985," Jobs told the NYT.

A week later, NeXT and Be met separately with top Apple execs at a Palo Alto hotel frequented by the Silicon Valley geekerati, and the word was out: Jobs and Apple were courting one another.

And it wasn't only Jobs' operating system that Apple was interested in. "We always talked about him being on the inside," Hancock said at the time. "We're hoping he can show us where to go from here in emerging markets and technologies."

On December 20, 1996, Amelio announced the acquisition of NeXT Software. "We chose Plan A instead of Plan Be," the sooner-be-ex-Apple-CEO is reported to have quipped.

Gil Amelio and Steve Jobs at Macworld Expo 1997
Apple's then-chairman and CEO Gil Amelio on stage with Steve Jobs at Macworld Expo 1997

Then, on January 7, 1997, Amelio gave what many observers ridiculed as the most discombobulated, rambling keynote speech imaginable at Macworld Expo in San Francisco – one that your reporter once described as having "a lack of focus matched only by Apple's product line, which was lumbered with ill-performing Performas and other humdrum machines."

As Amelio mercifully brought his talk to an end, he invited Jobs on stage to demo what Apple had just bought: NeXTStep and its cutting-edge OpenStep development environment. After enduring well over an hour of Amelio's stultifying speechifying, the crowd went wild when Jobs bounded onto the stage, strutting and beaming as he showed off his slick software. His adoring fans bruised their palms with applause, and a new era – both for Jobs and for Apple – began.

And Hancock? The person who did more to return Steve to his "first adult love" than anyone else at Apple? Word soon began to circulate among Apple managers that, behind her back, Jobs dismissed her as a "bozo".

Of the $427 million in cash and stock that Apple paid for NeXT, Jobs took $100 million for himself and kept all 1.5 million shares of Apple stock that were part of the deal. No NeXT staffer got as much as a share.

Good Steve. Bad Steve.

Jobs takes over

When Jobs landed at Apple in early 1996, he came without a title any more specific than "adviser" and without any duties more-defined than "advising" – a minister without portfolio, as it were. But that didn't stop him from remaking Apple into a company more to his liking.

However, despite all the buzz of a "palace coup", the lack of faith in Amelio by many Apple staffers, and the desire by many throughout Silicon Valley for him to take over, a BusinessWeek article from that period quotes Jobs as saying: "People keep trying to suck me in. They want me to be some kind of Superman. But I have no desire to run Apple Computer. I deny it at every turn, but nobody believes me."

Technically, Jobs may not have been running Apple, but he was certainly influential. He convinced Amelio to starve Sculley's pet project, the Newton. He talked Amelio into revamping his executive staff, and in 11 weeks, half of the eight were Jobs' recommendations, including Jon Rubinstein running hardware and Avie Tevanian running software – both of whom had worked with Jobs at NeXT.

Macworld 1997 cover
Jobs lobbied for the demotion of Apple COO Marco Landi, Amelio agreed, Landi quit. Jobs lobbied against CTO Ellen "bozo" Hancock, and Amelio took R&D away from her. Jobs lobbied for cutting advanced R&D, and Amelio made plans to cut that department's budget by 50 per cent. Jobs lobbied for getting rid of poorly performing products and product-development efforts, and Amelio pulled the plug on the Performa line of consumer Macs, and stopped development of OpenDoc and its web-tool collection, CyberDog.

Then on July 9, Apple's board of directors showed Gil Amelio the door, a move that The New York Times called an "abrupt ouster" that "casts doubt on whether the company that pioneered the personal computer industry can be revived." Hancock resigned along with him.

When making their announcement, the Apple board said that Jobs would take a larger role. They had offered him the position of CEO, which he declined, saying that he already was a CEO – at Pixar – and that one CEO position was enough. He did, however, agree to join the Apple board.

Jim McCluney, Apple's operations chief, told BusinessWeek of Amelio's good-bye and Jobs' hello. McCluney said he was called to a meeting with Amelio and Apple's top execs. "Well, I'm sad to report that it's time for me to move on," Amelio said. "Take care." And with that, after being Apple CEO for merely 17 months, Amelio left the room.
MacAddict 1997 cover

Jobs entered, McCluney recalls, and asked the execs, "OK, tell me what's wrong with this place." After a few timid replies, Jobs countered that what was wrong was Apple's products. And he had a firm opinion of what was wrong with them: "The products suck! There's no sex in them anymore!"

Soon afterwards, Jobs revealed what most observers had surmised when 1.5 million shares of Apple stock hit the market in June: those were the shares that Jobs had been given in the NeXT deal – he had sold them immediately after the six months for which he had agreed to hold them.

"Yes, I pretty much had given up hope that the Apple board was going to do anything. I didn't think the stock was going up," Jobs told Time magazine. "If that upsets employees," he added, "I'm perfectly happy to go home to Pixar."

That sale, however, turned out to be not the wisest financial move. Apple's stock shot up in August after Jobs made his most important announcement by far during his short tenure at Apple: a partnership with Microsoft.

On August 6, Jobs took the stage at Macworld Expo in Boston, and told the crowd of Apple fans that Apple and Microsoft had settled their long-running "look-and-feel" patent dispute, that Redmond had purchased $150 million in non-voting Apple stock and agreed not to sell it for a minimum of three years, and most importantly, Gates & Co. had promised to continue support for Microsoft Office on the Mac for five years.

At the time, fanatical Apple fanbois considered Microsoft the Evil Empire and Bill Gates the Great Satan. And Jobs hadn't exactly done his best to quell that sentiment. For example, in the 1996 documentary Triumph of the Nerds, he had said: "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. I don't mean that in a small way. I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their products."

Jobs was not alone in that belief, and so after he announced the Microsoft deal at his Macworld keynote there were more than a few boos when Bill Gates appeared on a giant screen behind Jobs in a satellite feed – but those boos were drowned out by the applause of the more-rational Mac lovers in attendance who understood that an endorsement by mighty Microsoft was exactly what Apple needed.

Time magazine 1997 cover
Jobs chided the boo-birds. "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win Microsoft has to lose," he said. "We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job. And if others are going to help us, that's great, because we need all the help we can get."

Jobs also noted that "if we screw up and we don't do a good job, it's not somebody else's fault. It's our fault."

And he told a reporter from Time magazine that screwing up was very much on his mind. "Apple has some tremendous assets," he said, "but I believe without some attention, the company could, could, could – I'm searching for the right word – could, could..." Pause. "Die."

Jobs wasn't alone in his worries. Michael Dell, when asked what he'd do if he were running Apple, famously told an ITxpo97 crowd in October of 1997: "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."

The iMac enters the matrix

Even before Michael Dell's dismissive comment, Jobs had already began taking decisive steps to remake the company he had cofounded.

In the summer of 1997 he swiftly terminated Apple's misguided operating-system licensing program, which was pulling sales away from Cupertino without increasing the Mac operating system's market share.

First, he refused to extend the same licensing deals that clonemakers had for System 7 to the new System 8, which was released on July 26. Then on August 30 he eliminated cloners participation in the Mac OS Up-To-Date program, which provided low-cost operating system updates for purchasers of new Macs. And finally, on September 2 he announced that Apple had purchased the preeminent clone-making licensee, Power Computing, for $100 million in Apple stock.

To be sure, there were clonemakers other than Power Computing – DayStar, Motorola, Pioneer, APS, MacTell, Akia, and MaxxBoxx – but they all soon got out of the business. UMAX lastest the longest, staying at the low end of the market, but finally gave up on May 27, 1998.
Power Computing anti-Intel ad from 1996
Power Computing took a decidedly more aggressive approach to branding than did Apple

Soon after the purchase of Power Computing – on September 16, to be exact – Jobs announced that he was now Apple's "interim CEO".

As interim top dog, Jobs quickly instituted what he referred to as his "Loose lips sink ships" policy, named after those ubiquitous World War II posters that warned Americans to keep their mouths shut in case an enemy might be listening. Apple had previously allowed journalists access to engineers, and had preannounced its products to us ink-stained wretches under nondisclosure agreements. But upon Jobs' arrival the company clammed up – a policy that continues to this day.

In addition to killing the clone dragon and pulled up the drawbridge, Jobs looked inside the Cupertinian castle and saw a disorganized morass of often-duplicative and hardly category-leading products.

As Jobs explained it to the assembled developers at 1998's Worldwide Developers Conference, "What I found when I got here was a zillion and one products" – well, to be more accurate, there were 15 different Mac platforms, plus servers, monitors, scanners, and printers.

"And I started to ask people," he continued, "why would I recommend a 3400 over a 4400? Or when should somebody jump up to a 6500, but not a 7300? And after three weeks, I couldn't figure this out. 
And I figured if I can't figure it out working inside Apple with all these experts telling me in three weeks, how are customers ever going to figure this out?"

Jobs' solution was to drastically cut the number of platforms that Apple produced from 15 to four, which he described in a product matrix of consumer and pro platforms on the x axis and portable and desktop platforms on the y axis.

That matrix had no place for either the hardware or software aspects of the Newton program. On February 27, 1998, Apple announced that it was ending all Newton development, which meant the end of Apple's two Newton-platform products of the time, the stylus-operated MessagePad 2100 and the keyboard-equipped eMate 300.
Apple's Newton OS–based eMate 300
Apple's Newton-with-a-keyboard was intended for the education market. Didn't happen

The Newton had been John Sculley's baby, and when asked if Jobs killed the Newton out of revenge for being maneuvered out of Apple in 1985, Sculley replied: "Probably. He won't talk to me, so I don't know."

The two "pro" boxes in Jobs' matrix were already filled by the Power Mac G3 and PowerBook G3 were introduced in November 1997. They, however, were outgrowths of Apple's older design language: the original Power Mac G3 was a traditional beige box, and the PowerBook G3 was essentially a refinement of previous PowerBooks.

It was the consumer desktop that Jobs introduced on May 6, 1998, that was the turning point in Apple's design thinking. Many have also argued that it was also the end of Apple's death spiral and the beginning of Jobs' meteoric ascent.

Apple's original Power Mac G3Apple's last beige box: the Power Mac G3
(source: Mac-History.net – click to enlarge)

That consumer desktop was the iMac. While Jobs is widely credited for its creation, its basic design had been kicking around Apple for some time, designed by the man who since 1996 has been Apple's lead designer: Jonathon Ive.

Ive had been hired at Apple in 1992, but his design sense – he was a devotee of Braun designer Dieter Rams – hadn't been appreciated in Apple's corner offices. As a former colleague of Ive's told The Observer, "There is a rumour Apple had designed the iMac years earlier but the existing boss was not interested, so they put it away. When Jobs returned and asked what ideas they had, Jonathan brought it out and the rest is history."

Jobs is also often credited with having the foresight to add USB and drop the floppy drive from the iMac, but credit for those decisions should at least be shared by Jon Rubinstein, Apple's hardware-engineering lead who had left NeXT a few years before that company's acquisition by Apple, and whom Jobs introduced to Amelio and suggested he hire.

It was Rubenstein who managed the breakneck pace of the iMac's development that enabled it to make it to its May 1988 coming-out party. That event, not coincidentally, was held in the same Flint Center auditorium in Cupertino where the original Mac made its debut in 1984. Also not coincidentally, when Jobs introduced the iMac it gave the audience the same greeting, in the same script font, that the orginal Mac had 14 years earlier: "Hello" – but with the addition of "(again)".

One other person deserves mention: Ken Segall of Apple's ad firm TBWA\Chiat\Day, who gave the iMac its name. Segall told The Cult of Mac in 2009 that Jobs had suggested another name that Segall considered so bad it would "curdle your blood" – though he wouldn't divulge Jobs' suggestion. Jobs originally hated the name "iMac", Segall says, but eventually warmed to it.

Jobs certainly presented the iMac at its introduction with warmth and affection. After enumerating the shortcomings of contemporary consumer computer, he dismissed their desgn by saying "these things are uggggly. The iMac, on the other hand, was a whole new design ball game. "The whole thing is translucent – you can see into it," Jobs enthused. "It's so cool!"

Jobs also touted the iMac's "coolest mouse on the planet" – an evaluation that many disagreed with – and the iMac's 360-degree design. "The back of this thing looks better than the front of the other guys'," Jobs said. "It looks like it's from another planet – and a good planet. A planet with better designers."

Bondi Blue Rev. A iMac
Jobs + Ive + Rubinstein + Segall = iMac (click to enlarge)

Inside its translucent Bondi-blue-and-white shell, the original iMac had decent specs for a consumer-level computer of its time: a 233MHz G3 processor with 0.5MB backside cache, 32MB RAM expandable to 128MB, 100Mbps Ethernet, 33Kbps modem, 4Mbps iRDA, 4GB hard drive, and a tray-loading 24x CD-ROM drive.

But what sold the iMac wasn't its specs, it was its looks and its plug-and-play simplicity. It can be argued that the iMac represented an inflection point in consumer-computer sales: prospective buyer no longer asked their computer-savvy friends to interpret megahertz and gigabytes for them, they simply saw what they liked and bought it.

On the consumer side, Jobs went on to follow that "Keep it simple, stupid" philosophy with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and rode it all the way to the bank. On the day that the iMac was first introduced – three months before it shipped on August 15 – Apple's stock was selling for $7.58 per share. Hmmm... Let's check what it's going for today.

It seems that Jobs was onto something.

The life and times of Steven Paul Jobs, Part Two


Empire-building inspirational visionary, or megalomaniacal swine?

Related articles: 

 10 Most Memorable Steve Jobs CEO Moments

1Malay or 1Malaysia? Malaysia All Screwed-Up!


1Malay or 1Malaysia?

All Older Malaysians are much to be accountable of what Malaysia is in today... Tolerances had been abused, and patience had been taken for granted... We are now what we had been-----By doing nothing Right then, that is how we had ended up to what is Today!!

If we choose to remain as what we had done, then we will expect nothing more than what we already had today!!

Malay, Chinese and Indian are all Malaysian brothers and sisters. But BN has screwed Malaysians and Malaysia up.

Malay 1st…. Malaysian 2nd

When a Malay, Chinese and Indian, all Malaysians, apply for:-

1)   Scholarships, Malays will get it first irrespective of bright Malaysians

2)   Entry to the local universities and best courses such medicine, dentistry, law, Malays will get it first irrespective of quality. Residential hostels, Matriculation courses, MARA Uni , Malays will get 90% to 100%. (By the way, matriculation exams are internally set by own lecturers - about thousands of straight A’s students in Matriculation compared to the straight A’s STPM which are few. This is “Malay meritocracy vs Malaysian meritocracy”!

3)   Social Welfare, Malays will get it first irrespective of how poor the Malaysian rakyat is

4)   Business Contracts,  Malays will get it first irrespective of who can offer the best value, quality and unblemished track record. Even when blacklisted, Malay associations have the right to complain because the rakyat owes them a living.

5)  Sharing of wealth and equity, IPOs, ASB, Malays will get it first. Even with ASB for Malays give higher returns and principal guaranteed capped at RM200K instead of other bonds for Malaysians with lower yield capped at RM50K.  This will be ongoing. WhyMalays cannot reach 30% equities? Statistics are manipulated so that valuation of shares are based on par value (Imagine valuing CIMB, Maybank, Sime darby etc at par value of RM1.00 instead of market value of RM12 etc. Malaysians must accept these assumptions or make sure this is hidden or else priviledges are gone..!! )

6)   Low cost houses, lands, houses even bungalows , Malays will get it first because they are the supreme race and the rest of Malaysians are immigrants. Quotas for Malays are 30% to 50% with steep discounts to be subsidized by the rest of the Malaysians.

7)   Important Senior management jobs, CEO positions in government linked companies, Malays will get it first irrespective of the best qualified and most capable Malaysian candidates.

8)   Government linked positions, civil positions , nurses and teachers training, Malay will get first irrespective whether they are qualified

 9 ) Religious land for worship or terms of God , Malays own it and the rest must obey.

10) Demonstrations, freedom of expressions, racial blurs, Malays can have their say, others under ISA …



Now you know why it is Malay 1st,  Malaysian 2nd Education, welfare, economic, business policies are to benefit Malay first then Malaysian 2nd.  The rest of the rakyat, who works hard, contribute to nation building will continue to be Malaysians 2nd.. '

So it is not so difficult to understand if a Malay Indonesian Badminton player is paying against a Chinese or Indian Malaysian, those who subscribe Malay 1st, Malaysians 2nd will cheer for the Malay badminton player.

When there is a citizenship application of a Malay Indonesian and a qualified non Malay, the Malay Indonesian will get it irrespective of merits.

That is why we have Malay is 1st class other Malaysians 2nd class.This is the only country that has racism and special rights enshrined in the constitutions because Malay is supreme.

So if you have the opportunity to migrate to be treated fairly and justly,why stay? Malaysians 2nd means you will always be an immigrant. Why become an immigrant with 2nd class rights when other countries are willing to give you the same rights.

1Malaysia to appease Malaysians 2nd class hope until the elections…

Wise UP Malaysians! Vote wisely. 

KHOO KAY PENG IS RIGHT. HOW CAN NAJIB WALK HIS TALK??? TIME IS ALSO RUNNING OUT!

1 .  NAJIB CANNOT EVEN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE 1MALAYSIA CONCEPT &  THE RACIAL POLITICS CURRENTLY PRACTISED BY THE MANY MALAY POLITICIAN IN UNMO.

2 .  IN THIS CASE WHERE IS THE FUTURE OF 1MALAYSIA???
 IN OTHER WORD, IT IS  ONLY NAJIB'S SLOGAN  & WE CANNOT SEE HOW IT WILL WORK FOR ALL MALAYSIAN IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE!!

3.  1MALAYSIA CONCEPT WILL NEVER WORK IF HE CANNOT STOP THESE MALAY POLITICIANS FROM TRYING TO CHAMPION MALAY SUPREMACY  OVER OTHER RACES  IN THE COUNTRY!

PLEASE THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY MALAYSIAN AS POSSIBLE SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO ASSESS THE 1MALAYSIA SLOGAN ADVOCATED BY NAJIB....... ..... .... ......... .......

Khoo Kay Peng speaks out..  Can Najib Walk his Talk?

So far, the judgment is NO.   Again the saying pertaining to this, Your actions is so loud (not walking your talk) that I cannot hear what you are saying (all your speeches are for nothing) NEM, NEP, Perkasa & Malay First, Malaysian Second: Time is Running Out for PM Najib

PM Najib is forced to go back to the Barisan old script when he was asked to react on his deputy's statement that he was "Malay 1st, Malaysian 2nd".   Najib defended his deputy, "Being a Malay doesn't mean that you are against 1Malaysia or you don't think like a Malaysian." "Similarly, if you are a Malaysian Chinese, it doesn't mean that you don't think like a Malaysian or subscribe to the concept of 1Malaysia," he said.

Najib's knee-jerk reaction on Muhyiddin's statement unmasks his own understanding about nation building and the 1Malaysia concept.

The lack of national affinity and shared destiny is the main obstacle for 1Malaysia. It is sad to note that the 1Malaysia founder himself does not share the vision of nationhood and citizenship. If Najib does not trust his own nation building agenda, he should not have misused the name, Malaysia .

1Malaysia is not consistent with Ethnicity 1st, Nationality 2nd.
 
We cannot blame Muhyiddin for his lack of national identity because nation building was not featured in the Barisan rule over the last 5 decades. Barisan is an antithesis to 1Malaysia and nation building. The most important element in a nation building project is to outlaw racial discrimination. Barisan is the epitome of racism and racially based politics.

Najib cannot remain coy and silent on the demands, attacks and allegations made against the Chinese community, in particularly, by Perkasa.

Interestingly, a politician such as Ibrahim Ali needed racism to resurrect his career. Of course he is enjoying the media limelight at the moment. At the Aljazeera interview, he lambasted "If these people say that they are second-class citizens, don't talk s**t! Don't talk s**t! I repeat three times, don't talk s**t!"

"We, the Malays have forgiven them a lot, we have sacrificed a lot of our interests," he added.

I would like Ibrahim to clarify what interests?   It appears that Muhyiddin is now clamouring to ride on Perkasa's wave by declaring that he is "Malay 1st" and "Malaysian 2nd".

Regardless of the publicity stunt and damage control, Najib knows that his defence of Muhyiddin and his statement is going to tear his concept to pieces.   His administration is dragging its feet on the NEM details and mechanism. It makes us wonder if there is any meat at all in NEM.

Time is running out for him. Another talk but no walk is going to put him on the same pedestal as Abdullah Badawi.

Najib should state his stand on Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali's disrespect for non-Malay citizens. They (Najib, Muhyiddin and Ibrahim) should remember that their salaries and perks are paid by Malaysians of all races. Not by the Malays only.

SAY NO TO RACISM!

Posted by Khoo Kay Peng .  

If you had never voted... for once in your life... VOTE in the 13th GE. This is your last chance to make a change for the sake of your next generation- Now or Never

Wednesday 5 October 2011

Wake-up call for Malaysian Chinese voters!



ANALYSIS By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek says Malaysians need a New Deal that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive to address today’s concerns and it should epitomise the core expectations of the people.



DATUK Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has outlined a wide-ranging “New Deal” for Malaysians that include abolishing obsolete laws, relaxing the hold on the media, democratising the economy and liberalising the education system.

The MCA president urged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who was at the 58th MCA general assembly over the weekend when Dr Chua called for the reforms, to “take a giant leap forward” and offer the deal to all Malaysians.

“It should not allow the baggage of the past to be a millstone around the necks of our children and grandchildren,” he said to the applause of the delegates.

“Malaysians need a New Deal that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive of all Malaysians to address today’s concerns.

“It should epitomise the very core expectations of the people,” he added.

While proposing that outdated and irrelevant laws be repealed, he also proposed permission for public protests at designated places with a transparent police permit application system.

On the all-important economic front, he said cronyism and nepotism when awarding projects should be abolished and affirmative action based on needs and merits be extended to any group that is poor.

On education, the New Deal hopes that mother tongue languages would eventually be made compulsory in all national schools.

Dr Chua also called for Unified Examination Certificate graduates to be admitted into public universities.

On calls for English to be made compulsory, Dr Chua said it is time the Government set a time frame to achieve this.

He also proposed a one-off cash payment to poor Malaysian households to help them tide over the rising cost of living and a monthly allowance for the affected households – a move that many Malays and Indian households would also welcome.

His New Deal is within grasp and achievable for the younger generation who wants to see the country reform.

Dr Chua is banking on these reforms, in part already promised by Najib, to carry the MCA into the next general election and win the support of Chinese voters, who make up the majority in 46 parliamentary constituencies.

He is, in fact, eyeing the young voters.

The MCA performed dismally in 2008, winning only 15 parliamentary seats.

The DAP has since emerged as the champion of the Chinese community, a position once held by the MCA.

The reforms can help the MCA stand its ground against the DAP’s accusations that it did not fight for the Chinese community and had only kowtow to Umno all these years.

This is not true as cooperation with Umno and the Government had allowed the MCA to achieve a lot for the people over the years.

One example is the fact that 20,000 youngsters graduate annually from UTAR, a college conceived and built by the MCA.

While the Chinese are either sitting on the fence or supporting the DAP, Dr Chua warned that the country would see, not a two-party system, but a two-race system.

He said if the Chinese voters were blind to the realities of politics in the country, they would sit in the Opposition while the Malays form the Government.

Dr Chua said they were off on a tangent, on their own, nursing anger against the Government.

But, he said, the Government has become inclusive and has started political, social and economic reforms that were gradually transforming the country.

His overall message to the assembly delegates is – if they (the Chinese) refuse to see the reform direction the country is taking they would end up the losers.

Dr Chua has promised that if the Chinese voters, for some reasons, don’t give their support to the MCA and if its performance is worse than in 2008, the party will stay out of the Government altogether.

MCA proposes New Deal for Malaysians

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak (right) greets MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek (3rd, left) after giving his speech at the party's 58th AGM today. At left is MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai. BERNAMA 

KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 2, 2011): MCA has proposed a New Deal to snag voters and regain full support for the party, as well as for the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Party president Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek urged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who officiated the party's annual general meeting (AGM) today, to embrace this new deal, which will "give every Malaysian, their children, and grandchildren confidence and hope that their future is in Malaysia."
"The world has changed, and Malaysia cannot sit still when the world moves ahead with more progressive policies that do away with ideological dogmatism," said Chua, lauding Najib's push for legislative reform and the repeal of the Internal Security Act, among others.



"Laws, policies, ideologies and beliefs that have outlived their relevance must be changed. If we do not do away with them or adapt to the times, they will act as stumbling blocks that impeded the progress of the country and its people.

In a wide-ranging speech, Chua in his opening address during the party's 58th AGM held at the MCA headquarters here, also reiterated the party's vow that it will not accept any government posts if it does not gain the support of the Chinese community.

"Delegates will pass a resolution that the party will not take up any government posts if the MCA does not fare better than in the 2008 general elections.

"Such a move is to respect the wishes of the voters, and should be construed as such and not as a threat to the voters," Chua said.

Chua had mooted the decision in April, when he announced that the party will refuse to take Cabinet posts if it does not turn the tide of support from the 2008 elections.

"Hopefully this decision will create greater awareness of the need for unity among MCA members, and that the survival and destiny of the party is in their hands," said Chua.

Elaborating on the new deal, the MCA president said it is for a fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive government.

"The government should listen more to concerned Malaysians who are now more vocal and politically conscious than before," said Chua, adding that there should be more channels for peaceful dissent, and that routes and places be designated for protests.

"However, organisers of demonstrations must ensure that it is peaceful with no threat towards human life or property," he said.

Chua also proposed that the government should work towards abolishing the Printing Presses and Publications Act.

"The MCA feels the press should have the liberty to exercise self-control, as there are already other laws such as the Sedition Act and the Official Secrets Act to check on any wrongdoing," he said.

Chua also called for the University and University College Act (UUCA) to be reviewed.

"MCA believes that the UUCA should be amended to allow students to be engaged in political activity to respect their rights as voters," he said.

Chua also touched on the economy, saying it must be made free from the encumbrances of cronyism and nepotism, corruption and unfair business practices.

"The rakyat wants a just society and a fairer business environment that emphasises on meritocracy, inclusiveness and transparency," he said, adding that "doing business should be simpler, minus all the red tape."

However, the new deal should not be seen as an attempt to rewrite the so-called Merdeka contract.

"I know there will be groups who will attack me for even suggesting it. But let us be bold and brave enough to rework it to make it more suitable for the times and to meet the aspirations of all Malaysians," he charged, adding that the government and the party should rise above narrow self-interests.

MCA seeks New Deal

Reports by FOONG PEK YEE, NG SI HOOI, EDMUND NGO, ELWEEN LOKE, FLORENCE A. SAMY, MAZWIN NIK ANIS, RUBEN SARIO, SIRA HABIBU, RAHIMY RAHIM, REGINA LEE and PRIYA KULASAGARAN > Photos by DARRAN TAN, AZHAR MAHFOF, SAM THAM, LOW LAY PHON and CHAN TAK KONG

KUALA LUMPUR: A “New Deal” based on fairness and bravery is needed to give the people confidence and hope that their future is in Malaysia, said Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The MCA president said the New Deal must embrace everyone as well as erase policies and laws which are unjustified and considered stumbling blocks.

“The time to act is now. The New Deal should give every Malaysian, their children and grandchildren confidence and hope that their future is in Malaysia,” Dr Chua said at the opening of the MCA's 58th annual general assembly at Wisma MCA here yesterday.

Urging Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to take the giant leap forward and offer all Malaysians a new deal for the future, Dr Chua said Barisan Nasional should not allow “the baggage of the past to be a millstone around the necks of our children and grandchildren”.

Presidential address: Dr Chua delivering his keynote address at the MCA’s 58th annual general assembly at the party headquarters in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. — CHAN TAK KONG / The Star
“Malaysians need a New Deal that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive of all Malaysians to address today's concerns of the young and future generation. It should encompass political, social, economic and educational issues and epitomise the very core expectations and aspirations of the people at large.”

He noted that the aspirations of the younger generation might not be the same as that of the older generation.

He added that the Government and leaders must tailor their policies and programmes to the young.

“They must have faith that their aspirations can be met, and that we (Barisan) will facilitate those aspirations and not be a hindrance to them,” Dr Chua said.

The MCA president said there was a need for Barisan to sit down and work out the New Deal, stressing that such efforts must not be seen as an attempt to completely rewrite the so-called Merdeka social contract.


“I know there will be groups who will attack me for even suggesting it.

“But let us be bold and brave enough to rework it to make it more suitable for the times and meet the aspirations of all Malaysians.”

Dr Chua said the policies formulated immediately after 1969 must change with the times, pointing out that the world had changed.

“The new leadership of the MCA wants the New Deal to also embrace a government that is constructive and which can unite all races.

“We must always pursue the middle path, reaching out to a younger generation who may feel alienated.
“We want a nation that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive of all Malaysians.”

Dr Chua said the Government should listen more to concerned Malaysians who were now more vocal, active and politically-conscious than before.

“As leaders, we must always be ready to listen. Politicians should never pretend to know everything,” he stressed.

He said a caring government would take care of everyone's needs and expectations, from education and employment to security and law and order, as well as the impact of inflation.

“The Government's duty is to reassure all Malaysians that they have a rightful place in the country. All Malaysians will benefit as the country develops to become a high-income nation by the year 2020. The expanding economic cake should be shared fairly and equitably by all Malaysians.

“Bumiputras should not be jealous of the success of non-bumis, and non-bumis should also not be jealous of the progress of bumiputras. We are 1Malaysia.”

MCA calls for a new deal based on fairness (Update)

By FOONG PEK YEE

KUALA LUMPUR: A new deal based on fairness and bravery needs to be drawn up to give the people confidence and hope that their future is in Malaysia, said MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.
"The new deal must embrace everyone and erase policies and laws which are unjustified and considered stumbling blocks," he said.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak acknowledges the standing ovation from delegates at the MCA's 58th annual general meeting. 
“The time to act is now. The new deal should give every Malaysian, their children and grandchildren confidence and hope that their future is in Malaysia,” he said at the opening of the MCA's 58th annual general assembly (AGM) at Wisma MCA here .

Urging Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to take the giant leap forward and offer all Malaysians a new deal for the future, Dr Chua said Barisan Nasional should not allow “the baggage of the past to be a millstone around the necks of our children and grandchildren”.

“Malaysians need a new deal that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive of all Malaysians to address today's concerns of the young and the future generation.

"It should encompass political, social, economic and educational issues and epitomize the very core expectations and aspirations of the people at large.”
 
In a highly-charged speech Dr Chua said the coalition must rise to the occasion, rise above narrow self-interest and do away with “ideological dogmatism and laws, policies, ideologies and beliefs that have outlived its relevance in today's political landscape.”

 
Dr Chua and his deputy Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai welcome Najib on his arrival for the 58th MCA annual general meeting at Wisma MCA on Sunday

He noted that the aspirations of the younger generation might not be the same like that of the older generation, and that the government and leaders must tailor their policies and programmes to the young.

“They must have faith that their aspirations can be met, and that we (Barisan) will facilitate those aspirations and not be a hindrance to them,” Dr Chua said.

The MCA president said there was a need for Barisan to sit down and work out the New Deal, stressing that such efforts must not be seen as an attempt to completely rewrite the so-called Merdeka social contract.

“I know there will be groups who will attack me for even suggesting it. But let us be bold and brave enough to rework it to make it more suitable for the times and to meet the aspirations of all Malaysians.

“Let us rise above narrow self-interests. The time to act is now.”

Dr Chua said policies formulated immediately after 1969 must change with the times, pointing out that the world had changed.

Dr Chua and his deputy Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai welcome Najib on his arrival for the 58th MCA annual general meeting at Wisma MCA on Sunday 
“The new leadership of the MCA wants the New Deal to also embrace a government that is constructive and which can unite all races. We must always pursue the middle path, reaching out to a younger generation who may feel alienated.

“We want a nation that is fair, democratic, transparent and inclusive of all Malaysians.”

Dr Chua said the government should listen more to concerned Malaysians who are now more vocal, active and politically conscious than before.

“As leaders, we must always be ready to listen. Politicians should never pretend to know everything,” he stressed.

He said a caring government would take care of everyone's needs and expectations, from education and employment to security and law and order, as well as the impact of inflation.

Dr Chua, who called for more channels for peaceful dissent, also proposed that designated places and designated routes be allowed for protest and that the applications for police permits must be transparent.

On political transformation, Dr Chua said politicians should go beyond the politics of cohesion, threat, race and religion.

He regretted that there were one or two Barisan leaders who were seen as aloof, arrogant and abusive, and their attitude had not gone down well with the rakyat.

Dr Chua, who likened their behaviour to that of “big brothers” or bullies, said their behaviour would only heighten the people's anger and negative perceptions of the Barisan and the government.

The MCA chief also called on Najib to ensure that all frontline civil servants to emulate the police by learning at least two additional languages besides Bahasa Malaysia.

On education, Dr Chua called for a timetable should also be set for the authorities to make English a compulsory pass subject in the SPM examination.

He also called for mother tongue languages to be encouraged at all national schools and should eventually be made compulsory.

“If such initiatives are planned properly with a staggered timeline, they are achievable.”

Touching on the economy, Dr Chua said the award of projects should not be based on a “know-who” basis, and the expanding economic cake should be shared fairly by all Malaysians under the 1Malaysia concept.

He also urged Malaysians not to see each other as competitors but instead team up to compete with the world outside.

On the rising cost of living and many people not being able to make ends meet, Dr Chua proposed the government help them via special one-off monetary relief like cash handouts to the poor, senior citizens, pensioners, and assistance like school books, uniforms and transportation for school-going children.

The government, he added, should also consider some form of monthly allowance for the poor.

Dr Chua also cautioned the people of the Pakatan's practice - talk but don't walk the talk apart from being “consistently inconsistent”.

He reminded the people that the opposition's populist policies might generate the “feel good” factor; but they would neither address their needs nor generate high income or better living standards.

Related Stories:
MCA AGM: Full text of Dr Chua Soi Lek's speech
Ensure sufficient English teachers before making subject compulsory, govt told
MCA heading in the right direction, ready to face polls
Chua proposes assistance to combat rising cost of living
No use saying sorry to people during polls, Barisan told
TAR College looks set to be upgraded
Party to strike back at bullies'
DPM lauds proposals to aid the poor
Business leaders praise Soi Lek
Tee Keat should get out of party, says MCA chief 

Tuesday 4 October 2011

The decline of the West




Ceritalah by KARIM RASLAN

These worries are further fuelled by the ongoing global financial crisis and political paralysis that’s slowly undermining both the European Union and the United States.

HISTORY is written by the victors. Losers rarely get much coverage let alone a mention.
In Malaysia, unlike in Indonesia, the forces of political conservatism ultimately won power from our former colonial masters.

As such, the “left” – as PAS deputy president Mat Sabu discovered – has been forgotten, if not vilified outright.

However, interpretations of history change from decade to decade. Indeed, there is no one “history”.
Instead, there are many and generally, it’s the powerful that get to determine whose version of events should dominate.

What happens though when a once all-powerful nation begins to falter? How does it write or rewrite its history?

Such a shift can be seen in the recent explosion of writing on the supposed decline of Western – particularly American – power.

Historian Niall Ferguson has charted the process in Civilisation: The West and the Rest. Ferguson argues that the “West” (particularly Britain and America) was able to surpass others (such as the Chinese and Ottoman Empires) due to six “killer applications”: competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society and work ethic.



Ferguson argues that the West perfected all six simultaneously, whereas “the Rest” developed only a handful or else let their comparative advantages in these fields stagnate.

His main thrust, however, is that the West’s current weakness stems from a loss of faith in its own civilisational values. In short, the West has failed to renew its commitment to its “killer apps”.

The West, therefore, ought to “recognise the superiority” of its own civilisation because it offers societies “the best available set of economic, social and political institutions”.

One may of course disagree with Ferguson’s thesis but his arguments are compelling.

His contention that the Islamic world declined because it closed its minds and borders is certainly persuasive, if unoriginal.

At the same time, Ferguson’s tome is a clear sign that there’s a growing trend amongst writers discussing (if not agonising) over the West’s “decline”.

These worries are further fuelled by the ongoing global financial crisis and political paralysis that’s slowly undermining both the European Union and the United States.

Indeed, the latest issue of the literary journal New Yorker includes a superb essay by Adam Gopnick, which claims that “declinism” has now morphed into a veritable literary genre – a pet topic for academics and pundits alike.

But is this really something new? “Cassandras” (named after the Trojan princess who foresaw her own city’s destruction at the hands of the Greeks) – the harbingers of doom and decline – have long been with us, even in times of great prosperity.

Indeed, according to Gopnick, the phrase “decline of the West” was used as early as 1918 by the German historian Oswald Spengler.

Nor were such fears of decay exclusively Western: writers and historians such as Ibn Khaldun, Tun Sri Lanang and Sima Qian have dwelt on similar themes as they charted the rise and fall of civilisations.
Moreover, the mere fact that these books are available across the globe suggests the depth and breadth of such concerns.

At the same time they also reveal a passionate commitment to the idea of renewal and reform. Ferguson is clearly a believer in the West’s capacity to re-invent and re-energise itself.

For us in Malaysia, these books – and there are countless others in airport bookshops – reinforce the sense of a world shifting on its axis, of a power alignment that prioritises China and India over Europe and the United States.

We are faced with the challenge of adapting to these newly (re-)emerging powers whilst not forgetting the strengths (or “killer apps”) that made the Western nations great such as the emancipation of women, democracy and religious tolerance.

And it is in this realm that we need writers and historians such as Ferguson and Gopnik – figures who’ll both commend and condemn with equal weight, stepping aside from mere politics.

The new geo-political landscape will demand prodigious powers of concentration and leadership. Mere rhetoric will be useless.

Malay ultras and/or an obsession with bangsawan politics won’t help us in coping with either China and/or India.

History requires candour and honesty. It also demands a degree of openness.

We need to be willing to accept the idea that there are many versions of the truth.

Our narrow-minded views on history hamper us as we chart our way forward.

You need to know yourself in order to plan for the future. Self-knowledge is critical.

I would argue that it’s only when we as Malaysians can start to engage about our collective history with the same vigour and honesty as our counterparts in the West then we’ll be ready to deal with the challenges outlined by these writers.

History – our many histories, Malay, Chinese, Indian, Dayak and so forth – requires objectivity and honesty. If we can’t deal with the past, how can we face the future?

Related posts:

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!

British Massacre - Batang Kali Victims win UK court scrutiny 

PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, In the spotlight for wrong reason?

Malaysia Day: Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance!

Malaya, look east to boost Malaysian racial unity!    

Malaysia's future: A time for Malay renewal ! 

Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence  
The true meaning of independence 

Reviving our winning ways     

A "great haircut" for U.S. growth



A "great haircut" to kick-start U.S. growth

Construction workers are shown on a residential housing work site in Burbank, California July 27, 2011.  REUTERS/Fred Prouser/Files

By Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein NEW YORK 

(Reuters) - More than three years after the financial crisis struck, the U.S. economy remains stuck in a consumer debt trap.

It's a situation that could take years to correct itself. That's why some economists are calling for a radical step: massive debt relief. Federal policy makers, they suggest, should broker what amounts to an out-of-court settlement between institutional bond investors, banks and consumer advocates - essentially, a "great haircut" to jumpstart the economy.

What some are envisioning is a negotiated process in which cash-strapped homeowners get real mortgage relief, even if it means forcing banks to incur severe write-downs and bond investors to absorb haircuts, or losses, in some of the securities sold by those institutions.

"We've put this off for too long," said L. Randall Wray, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "We need debt relief and jobs and until we get these two things, I think recovery is impossible."

The bailout of the nation's banks, a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package and an array of programs by the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates near zero may have stopped the economy from falling into the abyss. But none of those measures have fixed the underlying problem of too much U.S. consumer debt.

At the start of the crisis, household debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was 100 percent. Today it's down to 90 percent of GDP. But by historical standards that is high. U.S. households are still more indebted than their counterparts in Austria, Germany, Spain, France and even Greece - which is on the verge of defaulting on its government debt.

Tens of millions of U.S. citizens remain burdened with mortgages they can no longer afford, in addition to soaring credit card bills and sky high student loans. Trillions of dollars in outstanding consumer debt is stifling demand for goods and services and that's one reason economists say cash-rich U.S. companies are reluctant to hire and unemployment remains stubbornly high.

Take Donald Bonner, for example, a 61-year-old from Bayonne, New Jersey, who lost his job working on a dock in June. Back in March, he attended a "loan modification" fair held by JPMorgan Chase in New York. He has lived in his home since 1970, but was on the verge of losing his job. After falling behind on his $2,800-a-month mortgage, he sought to reduce his monthly payment. Bonner says the bank denied the request on the grounds that he is ineligible because his income is higher than the minimum threshold set by the Federal government for loan modifications.

"They keep asking me for additional documentation," Bonner said on Friday. "It seems to me there is never enough documentation and it has to be renewed every month. It does make you wonder with all this bailout money these banks have received, they don't want to lend the money."



DEBT JUBILEE

The idea of substantial debt restructurings and a haircut for bondholders has been raised by financial pundits, including Barry Ritholtz and Chris Whalen, two popular analysts and bloggers.

Renowned economist Stephen Roach, currently non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, has gone a step further, calling for Wall Street to get behind what others have called a "Debt Jubilee" to forgive excess mortgage and credit card debt for some borrowers. The notion of a Debt Jubilee dates back to biblical Israel where debts were forgiven every 50 years or so. In an August appearance on CNBC, Roach said debt forgiveness would help consumers get through "the pain of deleveraging sooner rather than later." (here)

But it's not just the liberal economists and doom-and-gloom financial analysts calling for a great haircut. Even some institutional investors, who might suffer some of the impact of debt reductions on their portfolios, are seeing a need for a creative solution to the mess.

"If there is something constructive that can be done it should be," said Ash Williams, executive director of the Florida State Board of Administration, which oversees $145 billion in public investments and pension money. "You don't want to reward bad behavior and you don't want to reward people who were irresponsible. But if there is a way to do well by doing good, then let's take a look at it."

To be sure, consumer debt levels have been coming down since the crisis began. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in August that outstanding consumer debt has fallen from a peak of $12.5 trillion in third quarter of 2008 to $11.4 trillion. (NY Fed report: tinyurl.com/3uuvk8d) That's a sign that consumers are getting less indebted.

But U.S. households are still carrying a staggering burden of debt.

As of June 30, roughly 1.6 million homeowners in the U.S. were either delinquent on mortgages or in some stage of the foreclosure process, according to CoreLogic. And the real estate data and analytics company reports that 10.9 million, or 22.5 percent, of U.S. homeowners are underwater on their mortgage -- meaning the value of their homes has fallen so much it is now below the value of their original loan.

CoreLogic said the figure, which peaked at 11.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2009, has declined slightly not because home prices are appreciating but because a growing number of mortgages are entering foreclosure.

The nation's banks, meanwhile, still have more than $700 billion in home equity loans and other so-called second lien debt outstanding on those U.S. homes, according to SNL Financial.

Debts owed by American consumers account for almost half of the nearly $9 trillion in worldwide bonds backed by pools of mortgages, car loans, credit card debt and student loans, which were sold to hedge funds, insurers and pension funds and endowments.

And that doesn't include the $4.1 trillion in mortgage debt sold by government-sponsored finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, has said the ongoing crisis should be called the "Second Great Contraction" because U.S. households remain highly leveraged. He says the high level of consumer debt is what distinguishes this from other recessionary periods.

COMPETING INTERESTS

For those in favour of a radical solution, there are a lot of headwinds.

Any debt reduction initiative must confront the issue of "moral hazard" - the appearance of giving a gift to an unworthy borrower who simply made unwise spending choices.

Institutional investors who own securities backed by pools of mortgages are reluctant to see struggling homeowners get their mortgages reduced because that means those securities are suddenly worth less. Any write-downs that banks are forced to take could imperil their capital levels.

Banks and bondholders, meanwhile, have competing interests. This is because mortgage write-downs depress the value of the securities in which mortgages are pooled and sold to investors. Big institutional investors like BlackRock have long argued that any meaningful principal reduction on a mortgage must also include a willingness by banks to take their own write-downs on any home equity loans, or second liens, taken out by the borrower on the property.

The banks continue to hold those second liens on their balance sheets and so far have been reluctant to mark down the value of those loans, even though the borrower often has fallen behind on their primary mortgage payments.

In other words, bondholders are taking the position if they must suffer losses, so must the banks.

"Institutional investors, pension funds and hedge funds all have fiduciary obligations and they can't necessarily agree to haircuts solely because it may be good social policy," Sylvie Durham, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig in New York, who practices in the structured finance and derivatives area.

Tad Rivelle, chief investment officer of fixed-income securities at TCW, which manages about $120 billion of which $65 billion is in U.S. fixed income, doesn't support a big haircut. But he says he can see why some economists and consumer advocates would favor debt reductions and debt workouts as way of dealing with the financial crisis and freeing up more money for spending.

Barry Ritholtz, director of equity research at Fusion IQ and a popular financial blogger, said the standoff between the banks and bondholders is untenable and doing a good deal of harm. An early critic of the bank bailouts, Ritholtz says bankers and bondholders are all in denial and both need to get far more pragmatic.

"They'd be bankrupt if not for the bailouts," says Ritholtz of the banks' position. "For their part, bondholders need to understand that we're not earning our way out of this mess and should eat losses now before they get nothing."

TIME FOR A MEDIATOR?

Given the standoff, there's a sense nothing will happen unless federal policymakers make the first move. The Fed reports that 71 percent of household debt in the U.S. is mortgage-related.

But so far Washington policymakers seem more content to rely on voluntary measures. The two main programs set up by the Obama administration to reduce home mortgage debt - the Home Affordable Refinance Program and the Home Affordable Modification Program - have had limited success.

To date, the U.S. Treasury Department reports that those voluntary programs have resulted in 790,000 mortgage modifications, saving those borrowers an average of $525 a month in payments. Many of those modifications, however, were for borrowers paying high interest rates, not ones underwater on their mortgages.

In fact, Bank of America, one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders, said it has offered just 40,000 principal reductions to its borrowers.

U.S. administration sources told Reuters that they support the concept of carefully targeted principal reductions for underwater borrowers. But these sources, who did not want to be identified, say the administration cannot mandate banks and bondholders to accept any principal reductions absent Congress authorizing the procedure.

The sources point out that federal authorities don't have a "magic wand" - even at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed home-loan titans.

These sources explain that even though Fannie and Freddie are effectively owned by the federal government, they are controlled by an independent regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's up to the FHFA, and not the administration, to approve any principal reductions on home loans involving Fannie and Freddie.

An FHFA spokeswoman declined to comment. The agency has repeatedly taken the position that its first job is protect taxpayers' return on investment in Fannie and Freddie rather than reducing mortgages for underwater borrowers.

CLOCK TICKING

The fear of some economists is that the economy may be going into a double dip recession. That means precious time is being lost if a negotiated approach to debt reduction isn't taken now.

But the banks also have their own big debt burdens to deal with. Next year alone, U.S. banks and financial institutions must find a way to either pay off or refinance $307.8 billion in maturing debt, compared to the $182 billion that is coming due this year, according to Standard & Poor's.

This maturing debt for U.S. banks comes at a time when they must start raising capital to deal with new international banking standards and are facing the possibility of a new recession that will crimp earnings. (Bank of America story: link.reuters.com/sys63s)

Beyond bank debt, hundreds of billions of dollars in junk bonds sold to finance leveraged buyouts also are maturing soon. S&P says "the biggest risk" comes in 2013 and 2014, when $502 billion in speculative-grade debt comes due.

Still, there are still plenty of economists who say the concern about consumer debt is overdone and that doing anything radical now would only make things worse. One of those is Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, who says a forced write-down or haircut of debt "would only result in a much higher cost of capital going forward and result in much less credit to more risky investments."

He said significant progress has been made in reducing private sector debt, and draconian debt forgiveness measures would be a mistake. "Early in the financial crisis I was sympathetic to passing legislation to allow for first mortgage write-downs in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the time for this idea has passed," says Zandi.

Still, the notion of a debt write-down and bondholder haircuts will probably be around as long as the unemployment rate stays high and the housing market remains depressed.

Indeed, it has been two years since the notion of a "Debt Jubilee" made it into the popular culture when Trey Parker and Matt Stone used it for an episode of the politically incorrect cartoon "South Park." In the episode aired in March 2009, (here), one of the characters used an unlimited credit card to pay off all the debts of the residents of South Park to spur the economy.

At the time, the idea seemed like just a funny satire on the nation's economic mess. But now it seems like no joke at all.

(Reporting by Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein; Additional reporting by David Henry and Joseph Rauch; Editing by Michael Williams and Claudia Parsons)