Ashton Kutcher starring in Steve Jobs movie

Apple fanbois deserves A Kutcher.

  On 4/3/2012 at 6:54 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 4/3/2012 at 12:49 AM, oscillik said:

  On 4/3/2012 at 12:37 AM, YO303 said:

I'm just saying, you shouldn't be slagging people off that are a billion time better than you, yes he was a insufferably rude and cultish megalomaniac, but so are most people, the difference is that he build a fucking empire while most people are just worthless miners.

 

And I'm just saying that the guy was a complete twat. He would consistently call people's hard work (and I quote) "absolute fucking shit" to their faces. Now, I'm all for not sugar coating things, but I think it's just polite to not completely demean someone in front of work colleagues when they've put a lot of effort into something.

 

The man was a cunt not only to his workers, but to his friends and even his own family.

 

For the record, I'm just fine not having a "fucking empire".

 

Virtually anyone who ever did things on grand scales were utter cunts.

Pick someone - maybe you're an RMS fanboi? How about Karl Marx? Mother Teresa?

 

Someone can put a lot of effort into something and it can still be shit.

Now personally, I think the veneration of Jobs is fucking ridiculous. He was a successful guy, bought other companies which made some great tech, bought some ideas and got rich. Hardly worthy of a biopic. But then, cultures need their heroes. It just seems that recent ones kind of fall short of the epics of the past.

fixed it for ya

as for my 'allegiance' to any one person who built something on grand scales - Bob Moog. Pretty sure he wasn't a cunt.

edit: also massive lol at your first suggestion that I'm an RMS fanboy, from what I've read about him, he is indeed a massive twat and I would definitely not class myself a fanboy

Oh please - building on past experiences is hardly anything new. But I know your irrational hatred of Apple (what a bizarre thing to waste energy on, hating a company) will only allow you to read the story one way.

I wasn't suggesting you personally were an RMS fanboi - it was a general you.

While I have no idea if Moog were a cunt or not, to compare the impact Moog synths have had on the general population to something like Apple or IBM, or Standard Oil is quite the stretch.

  On 4/3/2012 at 1:06 PM, chenGOD said:

Oh please - building on past experiences is hardly anything new. But I know your irrational hatred of Apple (what a bizarre thing to waste energy on, hating a company) will only allow you to read the story one way.

 

I wasn't suggesting you personally were an RMS fanboi - it was a general you.

 

While I have no idea if Moog were a cunt or not, to compare the impact Moog synths have had on the general population to something like Apple or IBM, or Standard Oil is quite the stretch.

1. Steve Jobs was a businessman. Not a technological pioneer. This is evident as far back as the garage days. The technological pioneers were the people that were employed at Apple. Regardless of my personal bias agains Apple products, I am not blind - Apple products have helped push technology (and it's proliferation) further, and it's a shame that Jobs gets all the credit when he himself seemed to 'invent' very little.

2. RMS really is a silly man lol

3. I never compared the impact Moog had to what Apple, IBM or Standard Oil are doing. You did that all by yourself. I said, and I quote "as for my 'allegiance' to any one person who built something on grand scales - Bob Moog. Pretty sure he wasn't a cunt.". As someone that frequents this forum and as a person that actually knows what they're talking about with regard to matters where music is concerned (because you do), surely you can't deny the impact that the Moog synthesizers had on music. An impact in the field that it operates in, much the same with Apple. It would be really stupid to say that Apple have impacted into the world of Sports.

In any case, I do see what you're saying - an extremely driven person can be very brusque. But there is a difference between having a hard lined attitude, and just being a cunt because of one's position. Steve Jobs seemed very much to fall into the latter.

1. Jobs organized the appropriate people around him to achieve his goals. He was smart enough to realize his own limitations and specialize in what he did best.

2. 100% agreement

3. I think it's a stretch to call what Moog did "building something on grand scales". The analog synthesizer did have an impact on music, for sure.And I love Moog products. Apple's impact as a manufacturer of personal computers has extended to mobile phones, mp3 players (not saying they were first, or necessarily even "best" as subjective a term as that is), mobile computing, film, publishing (by virtue of being a near monopoly in the earlier days of computers in design and publishing) and so on. Personal computers made impacts in so many areas of society. Certainly more of an impact than music. (It is hard to see sometimes, because we (obviously since we're here) are passionate about music, while most people couldn't give a fuck about it).

Not having known him personally, I can't say whether Jobs was a cunt because he could be one or whether he was a cunt because at times he needed to be. I'd wager it was the latter - because he was a smart enough businessman to know that you can't drive away talent by being a cunt to everyone all the time.

Steve Jobs was probably cunty, but not a cunt.

lol at comparing the impact of a synth to the impact of the iphone, pc, ipod, etc.

  On 4/3/2012 at 1:37 PM, oscillik said:

  On 4/3/2012 at 1:06 PM, chenGOD said:

Oh please - building on past experiences is hardly anything new. But I know your irrational hatred of Apple (what a bizarre thing to waste energy on, hating a company) will only allow you to read the story one way. I wasn't suggesting you personally were an RMS fanboi - it was a general you. While I have no idea if Moog were a cunt or not, to compare the impact Moog synths have had on the general population to something like Apple or IBM, or Standard Oil is quite the stretch.

1. Steve Jobs was a businessman. Not a technological pioneer. This is evident as far back as the garage days. The technological pioneers were the people that were employed at Apple. Regardless of my personal bias agains Apple products, I am not blind - Apple products have helped push technology (and it's proliferation) further, and it's a shame that Jobs gets all the credit when he himself seemed to 'invent' very little. 2. RMS really is a silly man lol 3. I never compared the impact Moog had to what Apple, IBM or Standard Oil are doing. You did that all by yourself. I said, and I quote "as for my 'allegiance' to any one person who built something on grand scales - Bob Moog. Pretty sure he wasn't a cunt.". As someone that frequents this forum and as a person that actually knows what they're talking about with regard to matters where music is concerned (because you do), surely you can't deny the impact that the Moog synthesizers had on music. An impact in the field that it operates in, much the same with Apple. It would be really stupid to say that Apple have impacted into the world of Sports. In any case, I do see what you're saying - an extremely driven person can be very brusque. But there is a difference between having a hard lined attitude, and just being a cunt because of one's position. Steve Jobs seemed very much to fall into the latter.

O come one, osc. That's so terribly simplifying things, I don't know where to start. Apple would not have been the Apple it is today if SJ was just a businessman and not a (technological) pioneer. See what I did there? True, he may not have been the stereotypical technical engineer creating groundbreaking code, or being the hardware genius Woz was. But calling him a businessman does not take into account his visions on what technology could do, imo. A businessman is all about running a business. In the beginning, SJ was almost the complete opposite. He was chasing a vision.

How do you explain Apple's early success, btw? In the beginning, SJ obviously wasn't a very good business man. So how come Apple was a success anyways? Was that a pure Woz-factor? Or maybe, just maybe, SJ was a bit more than a business man.

I also disagree with you "Jobs getting all the credit". We all know Woz. Just like the stories of the people at Xerox. If SJ gets credits, it's because of his vision and pure will power to achieve his visions. Call him a driving force. But in my eyes, that's something different than a business man.

Also, obviously SJ was a cunt even before he was in the position to actually be a cunt. It may seem otherwise to you, but there's plenty of simple facts making the opposite case. I cannot believe you think you actually have a point there.

If there's a "cult of apple" then maybe those people appreciate Steve Wozniak, but the general populace who were vaguely aware of Steve Jobs probably have no clue who Wozniak is or what he did. Also people in this thread are talking like they personally knew the guy. He seemed pretty gracious and intelligent in interviews, there's stories about him being a cunt but that kind of happens when you're a micro manager control freak who is thirty plus years into a major innovative business.

  On 4/3/2012 at 8:48 PM, zaphod said:

If there's a "cult of apple" then maybe those people appreciate Steve Wozniak, but the general populace who were vaguely aware of Steve Jobs probably have no clue who Wozniak is or what he did. Also people in this thread are talking like they personally knew the guy. He seemed pretty gracious and intelligent in interviews, there's stories about him being a cunt but that kind of happens when you're a micro manager control freak who is thirty plus years into a major innovative business.

There's this biography which got released pretty recently which is pretty open about the issue. There's no secret knowledge here. And since when are we into discussing with the general populace? This is not We Are The Politicians, is it?

What? lol. You're making an argument that applies to the general populace. When you make a statement about "people giving Jobs all the credit", I assume you're referring to the public at large, not IT managers sitting on forums. Those guys don't give Jobs the credit for anything, they debate shit like this.

I read the Isaacson book, but so what? As I said before, the guy was a bit cunty to people. but that management style led to innovation, loyal workers and a successful company.I don't worship the ground he walked on, and I think deifying business leaders is ridiculous, but it's perfectly logical that in a capitalist, materialist, first world society, people will gravitate toward messianic figures like Jobs as a kind of mythic representation of what our values can achieve when focused. I don't have an issue with people being interested in him. He was an interesting guy.

  On 4/3/2012 at 9:05 PM, zaphod said:

What? lol. You're making an argument that applies to the general populace. When you make a statement about "people giving Jobs all the credit", I assume you're referring to the public at large, not IT managers sitting on forums. Those guys don't give Jobs the credit for anything, they debate shit like this.

Ehm, I believe that was osc's statement?

  Quote

I read the Isaacson book, but so what? As I said before, the guy was a bit cunty to people. but that management style led to innovation, loyal workers and a successful company.I don't worship the ground he walked on, and I think deifying business leaders is ridiculous, but it's perfectly logical that in a capitalist, materialist, first world society, people will gravitate toward messianic figures like Jobs as a kind of mythic representation of what our values can achieve when focused. I don't have an issue with people being interested in him. He was an interesting guy.

Fair. But the point was that the cunty side was more than a management style. It was his style even before he became "business Steve". It was a reaction at osc's statement "But there is a difference between having a hard lined attitude, and just being a cunt because of one's position. Steve Jobs seemed very much to fall into the latter.". To which I disagreed. Not sure what your point is, tbh.

  On 4/3/2012 at 9:17 PM, goDel said:

Ehm, I believe that was osc's statement?

 

Yeah, my writing there is pretty unclear. I was rebuking the idea that anyone outside of a niche group of nerds knows who Steve Wozniak is, which is what I thought you were saying. As in, you were making a statement that people don't give Jobs the credit for Apple's success, and instead are fully aware of the part that Wozniak played. Maybe I misread your post.

The other part of my statement is just an argument against most of the posts in this thread. I don't think it's surprising or a big deal that Jobs was an asshole at times, and I don't care that people are interested in him to the point of wanting a biopic. It makes sense to me.

Fair.

On a sidenote, I don't know what your experience is with making general "arguments against most of the posts in this thread". But in my experience, making arguments against direct quotes are somewhat more effective. Who do you want to respond if you're arguing against most of the posts? Most of the people in a thread?

  On 4/3/2012 at 9:29 PM, goDel said:

in my experience, making arguments against direct quotes are somewhat more effective.

*jots it down*

*scribbles in the sideline*

im enjoying all your points

you people crazy.

It would literally be impossible to come up with a better choice of actor to portray Jobs than Ashton Kutcher.

Wait...maybe...THIS FUCKING ASSHOLE:

i gotta reserve judgement for the actual performance. I remember shitting all over Heath Ledger being the Joker in the Dark Knight...until I watched the movie. Ever since then I've been hesitant to make assumptions about actors. Maybe Kutcher can pull something memorable out of it. Maybe not. But Ill wait and see.

Ledger was a talented and well-respected actor long before he took that role...

  On 4/3/2012 at 2:50 AM, azatoth said:

  On 4/3/2012 at 2:26 AM, messiaen said:

  On 4/3/2012 at 12:37 AM, YO303 said:

I'm just saying, you shouldn't be slagging people off that are a billion time better than you, yes he was a insufferably rude and cultish megalomaniac, but so are most people, the difference is that he build a fucking empire while most people are just worthless miners.

this comment is so terrible im actually cringing at it on the internet which is not something that happens very often.

ditto

.... wow

Jeremy Davies still gets my vote. he's intense enough to pull off the ego driven role, and a similar vocal range.

  On 4/4/2012 at 1:58 AM, Rubin Farr said:

you people crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM2KI0Fs-fI

  On 4/4/2012 at 2:31 AM, The Overlook said:

Ledger was a talented and well-respected actor long before he took that role...

for what? I didn't see anyone vocalizing that opinion on here or anywhere else prior to that movie.

sometimes shitty actors were "made" for one particular part...who's to say this may not be Ashton's?

  On 4/4/2012 at 4:33 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 4/4/2012 at 2:31 AM, The Overlook said:

Ledger was a talented and well-respected actor long before he took that role...

 

for what? I didn't see anyone vocalizing that opinion on here or anywhere else prior to that movie.

 

 

Wasn't him nominated for an oscar for Brokeback Mountain?