# Bloomberg is reporting that Steve Jobs has resigned and recommended Tim Cook--



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Bloomberg is reporting that Steve Jobs has resigned and recommended Tim Cook as successor....

Looking for confirmation.

Steve Jobs Resigns: Apple CEO Stepping Down



> CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Apple’s Board of Directors today announced that Steve Jobs has resigned as Chief Executive Officer, and the Board has named Tim Cook, previously Apple’s Chief Operating Officer, as the company’s new CEO. Jobs has been elected Chairman of the Board and Cook will join the Board, effective immediately.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

*Steve Jobs resigns!!*

In a shocking bit of news, Steve Jobs handed in a resignation letter.

"To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community: I have always said 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. Unfortunately, that day has come. I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee. As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple. I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role. I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you. 
Steve"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It's all over the news now---minutes later.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

Nooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## speckledmind (Jan 12, 2005)

I just picked it up on Twitter 
Doesn't look good


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

Sad


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

This is astounding. 

Two things come immediately to mind when reading this. 

1- This was done by letter instead of press conference. I hope dearly that this does not signal that Steve's health has deteriorated.

2- This is not only the end of an era, but indeed the beginning of a new era. The next 2 years in computing will be very interesting to watch.

A7


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO | Computers | Macworld



> Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO
> Tim Cook named as new CEO; Jobs elected Chairman of the Board
> 
> Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO and the company has named former Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook to replace him.
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Just saw this. I wish him well.

So starts a new chapter for apple.


----------



## since84 (Jan 9, 2002)

He looked so awful at his last appearance -- It was kind of obvious something was really bad. All I can think of right now is shades of Jack Layton.

So sad


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I've merged the threads.

Really hope it's not because things have turned south due to his health and more just to do with the fact that he's been on leave for 8 months.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

I wish the best Steve Jobs. Let's hope Tim will have the same innovation that Steve Jobs would of had at the keynotes....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Steve Jobs did just become Chair of the Board of Directors of Apple, so he's just not running the day to day now. He's still a major player; Jobs is no Woz yet. Perhaps he'll draw more than that $1 per year salary finally...


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

HowEver said:


> Steve Jobs did just become Chair of the Board of Directors of Apple, so he's just not running the day to day now. He's still a major player; Jobs is no Woz yet. Perhaps he'll draw more than that $1 per year salary finally...


Even he is on the board of directors, its just not going to be the same...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

it ain't over til the fat lady sings....



> *Jobs has now been elected as chairman of Apple's board of directors.*
> 
> On behalf of the Apple's board, Art Levinson, chairman of Genentech, said Jobs's extraordinary vision and leadership saved Apple and guided it to its position as the world's most innovative and valuable technology company.
> 
> ...


Chairman Steve.....:clap:


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

What was interesting in the letter was Steve mentioning that there was in fact a succession plan. For the longest time no one would comment on if there was even one.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Really, really sad about this news. Steve is my hero. He's my homeboy. Very sad to see him leave as CEO.  :-(

Obviously we can all speculate that this is health related. My thoughts and prayers are for Steve.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Letter from Steve Jobs. *

*Letter from Steve Jobs*

To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said 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. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role. 

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Steve


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

since84 said:


> He looked so awful at his last appearance -- It was kind of obvious something was really bad. All I can think of right now is shades of Jack Layton.
> 
> So sad


While I hope Steve's not going Jacks direction; I think this marks a changing of the guard perhaps... Only time will tell if the successors to these two great men will be able to fill the now vacant shoes left to them.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

This doesn't look good, I'd heard of a succession plan for a while or at least that was always the buzz on the wires.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

While I feel a bit morose about the transition from iCEO to iChairman, overall I see this as a very positive move. Steve ain't gone, he's still with us (oh, and Apple) and still will be guiding the company. A lot of groundwork has gone into this transition behind the scenes, and Cook has had a couple of trial runs already. 

Look at it this way: if this were Steve's obituary, what would the market / public reaction be to Apple's future? Chaos. This is an orderly transition that has to happen sooner or later, and they've been working against the clock for years. Steve deserves his rest and time to deal with his health issues. He's already been through things that would have killed lesser men...










*Welcome, Chairman Steve. May your reign be long and prosperous!*


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> While I feel a bit morose about the transition from iCEO to iChairman, overall I see this as a very positive move. Steve ain't gone, he's still with us (oh, and Apple) and still will be guiding the company. A lot of groundwork has gone into this transition behind the scenes, and Cook has had a couple of trial runs already.
> 
> Look at it this way: if this were Steve's obituary, what would the market / public reaction be to Apple's future? Chaos. This is an orderly transition that has to happen sooner or later, and they've been working against the clock for years. Steve deserves his rest and time to deal with his health issues. He's already been through things that would have killed lesser men...
> 
> ...


Great way of putting things...I hope for Steves health to improve so he can guide the company he founded for a long while yet. Go Steve..


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Looks like I will be doing a massive cash out in the AM,


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Aug 4, 2010)

Just saw it on CBC news.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

On a related note, this may trigger the one rare moment that those of you with $$$ will have for a long time to get on the Apple stock train... if the market dips, that is. But I suspect most will see it in the positive light I offered above.


----------



## johnp (Aug 7, 2011)

"This is an orderly transition that has to happen sooner or later, and they've been working against the clock for years. Steve deserves his rest and time to deal with his health issues. He's already been through things that would have killed lesser men..."

I tend to agree with your analysis -- and sure hope you (we) are right!! 
But for me, on a very personal "gut level", my first reading of this news announcement this afternoon was quite discomforting.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

A surprise, but not a surprise - we all knew this would happen someday and how can it _not_ be health-related.

Apple has such depth of talent that its future remains bright. It will continue to innovate, it will continue on the course Steve set it on, it will continue making quality products that we enjoy using, it will continue to influence the computing industry. Steady as she goes with Tim Cook at the tiller.

Thanks for all you've done Steve.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Steve has done the right thing and has passed the reins to very capable hands. He has made a clean transition for the rather obvious replacement—Tim Cook has had well over a year, combining all the temp replacement times, to prove himself good enough to run the company. And he gets Steve Jobs's blessing to boot. There's a lot of people who gets things done at Apple and will continue to do so. Mr. Jobs's influence will always be felt. His break from being CEO is like his vision for everything—clean and uncluttered. Not entirely a shock, but a surprise nonetheless.

Perhaps Mr. Ballmer should take a hint…


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

I personally believe this is positive. Hopefully his health is ok. Seems alot of folks on the net are writing him off. 

I think the timing is great - new iPhones about to be launched, tablet competitors are fading fast, barely keeping up with iPad production b/c they are selling them all. It's all good.

And we knew it would someday happen.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

You know, I think this had to happen now... before the big iPhone 5 (and whatever else) announcement expected next month. This gives Tim Cook the stage, all to himself, with no tech journalists guessing "Will Steve be here...?" He gets to solidify his position as CEO and show the world that Apple is on solid ground, moving forward, it's all good.


----------



## SilverMaple (Apr 22, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> While I feel a bit morose about the transition from iCEO to iChairman, overall I see this as a very positive move. Steve ain't gone, he's still with us (oh, and Apple) and still will be guiding the company. A lot of groundwork has gone into this transition behind the scenes, and Cook has had a couple of trial runs already.
> 
> Look at it this way: if this were Steve's obituary, what would the market / public reaction be to Apple's future? Chaos. This is an orderly transition that has to happen sooner or later, and they've been working against the clock for years. Steve deserves his rest and time to deal with his health issues. He's already been through things that would have killed lesser men...


I totally agree with you, CubaMark.

Apple will be fine and I hope Steve Jobs' health improves.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> You know, I think this had to happen now... before the big iPhone 5 (and whatever else) announcement expected next month. This gives Tim Cook the stage, all to himself, with no tech journalists guessing "Will Steve be here...?" He gets to solidify his position as CEO and show the world that Apple is on solid ground, moving forward, it's all good.


You make very good points CM.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

Hope Steve pulls through ok. Agree with CM too, now is the time to do it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Best tweet I've read so far"

"Steve Jobs' text was meant to say: "I *reign* as CEO of Apple" Damn you autocorrect!"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha ha. Good one


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

I am very surprised that no one saw this coming. I knew about this months ago. All the signs were there.....you just had to piece them together as best as you can. The ONLY part I did not see was him staying on as Chairman.

Remember....Jobs is still an average human....just like the rest of us he will grow old, sick and die like everyone else. Blunt? Yes but it is the truth. As such he will be replaced....same with Tim Cook in the future.

I wish Tim Cook and Jobs the best of health and luck.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

i think that just a very few did not see this coming, what happened is that because most of us saw this coming for a few years now, when it finally becomes an "in your face" reality, it surprises you. Having struggled for such a long time and being such a trooper about it, this recent event can only mean that the end is very near. very sad indeed.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I'm a bit shocked, but at the same time I knew he would eventually leave Apple. at least this way the transition shouldn't be that big of a shock to the markets. Yeah it'll drop a little, but as soon as they see Apple can make it without Steve in the driver's seat, as it has when Steve left temporarily, all will move along. Apple just needs to keep on doing what they have been doing for the last few years. They have a vision and direction. They'll be fine!


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2011)

HowEver said:


> Best tweet I've read so far"
> 
> "Steve Jobs' text was meant to say: "I *reign* as CEO of Apple" Damn you autocorrect!"


:clap:

I almost spit cola all over my keyboard when I read that 

Long live chairman Steve! (and I mean that both figuratively and literally)


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Digikid said:


> I am very surprised that no one saw this coming. I knew about this months ago. All the signs were there.....you just had to piece them together as best as you can. The ONLY part I did not see was him staying on as Chairman.
> 
> Remember....*Jobs is still an average human....just like the rest of us he will grow old, sick and die like everyone else. Blunt? Yes but it is the truth.* As such he will be replaced....same with Tim Cook in the future.
> 
> I wish Tim Cook and Jobs the best of health and luck.


Liar.

_________________________


----------



## rodkin (Jan 7, 2003)

It looks like yesterday was not the best time for me to have bought all that Apple stock. It'll surely take a nosedive tomorrow morning.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Liar.


Truth always hurts my monster friend.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

> As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.
> 
> I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.


I am not so disappointed to see Steve go. He was always pushing innovation and creating a culture to support it, and if he truly did do his job, then Apple should be fine with his departure (relative). In the chairman role, I think he will still be able to positively influence Apple.

I have the belief that Apple was beginning to see diminishing returns with Steve as CEO. This is not saying is wasn't doing his job, but rather I view that the pace of his specific ability to push innovation was slowing. I hope that Apple will continue down the road of innovation and with a new CEO, be able to find new strength and determination in moving forward.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

CubaMark said:


> You know, I think this had to happen now... before the big iPhone 5 (and whatever else) announcement expected next month. This gives Tim Cook the stage, all to himself, with no tech journalists guessing "Will Steve be here...?" He gets to solidify his position as CEO and show the world that Apple is on solid ground, moving forward, it's all good.


I think Jonathan Ive should actually take the stage.


----------



## Snowy (Dec 13, 2008)

rodkin said:


> It looks like yesterday was not the best time for me to have bought all that Apple stock. It'll surely take a nosedive tomorrow morning.


Yes, it'll be interesting to see what happens with AAPL this morning.
I wouldn't be too concerned if you are in the stock for the long haul (IMO).


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

Gutted by this news but not really surprised. I just pray for his health.


----------



## Snowy (Dec 13, 2008)

Snowy said:


> Yes, it'll be interesting to see what happens with AAPL this morning.
> I wouldn't be too concerned if you are in the stock for the long haul (IMO).


On Edit: the stock is only down 2-3% in pre-market, so it seems the street is taking it all in stride (so far).


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)




----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

rodkin said:


> It looks like yesterday was not the best time for me to have bought all that Apple stock. It'll surely take a nosedive tomorrow morning.


So far looks like the biggest drop was after hours. I was kind of hoping for a bigger drop since I had a buy order in....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a slightly less optimistic view of this in the star: David Olive's Everybody's Business


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

Tech Elementz said:


>


Creative!


----------



## rodkin (Jan 7, 2003)

Much to my relief, AAPL is down just a little over 1%. I thought there would have been more of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to the news, with a bigger sell off. Luckily, that wasn't the case.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That article by Oliver was a meaningless place holder.

Apple and Google are dueling it out and the collateral damage is enormous to other companies.

People talk economies of scale and future tech, Apple makes a business out of it 

This is worth a re-read
?Apple's? Exclusive Supply Chain Of Advanced Technology [Is] Literally Years Ahead Of Anyone Else On The Planet?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Joker Eh said:


> I think Jonathan Ive should actually take the stage.


I prefer to think that Ive will be free to do what he does best by not being CEO. I'd like him to be as unencumbered as possible to continue the amazing work he does.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2011)

The CEO does not have to be the person that does all the presenting. When Steve Jobs was the CEO of course he's the best choice but no longer ... they need to find someone with charisma and great presentation skills to be 'the presenter' and let the CEO be a CEO. Maybe it's time for Apple to start a new trend and get celebrity geeks to do the presentations and keynotes


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Digikid said:


> Creative!


 - I know right!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> While I feel a bit morose about the transition from iCEO to iChairman, overall I see this as a very positive move. Steve ain't gone, he's still with us (oh, and Apple) and still will be guiding the company. A lot of groundwork has gone into this transition behind the scenes, and Cook has had a couple of trial runs already.
> 
> Look at it this way: if this were Steve's obituary, what would the market / public reaction be to Apple's future? Chaos. This is an orderly transition that has to happen sooner or later, and they've been working against the clock for years. Steve deserves his rest and time to deal with his health issues. He's already been through things that would have killed lesser men...
> 
> ...


Good to hear Apple won't be and Steve won't be Jobless!


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Joker Eh said:


> I think Jonathan Ive should actually take the stage.





Kazak said:


> I prefer to think that Ive will be free to do what he does best by not being CEO. I'd like him to be as unencumbered as possible to continue the amazing work he does.


I agree, I think that it would be a misuse of Ive's talent for him to be CEO.



Now only if Apple can get their products to work seamlessly together.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kazak said:


> I prefer to think that Ive will be free to do what he does best by not being CEO. I'd like him to be as unencumbered as possible to continue the amazing work he does.


I think Joker Eh was talking about Ive taking the stage at product announcements etc., not the being CEO... at least that was my take on it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Normally I just assume any Mac Man (or Woman) checks in with Joy of Tech, but this one belongs in this thread.
The Joy of Tech comic... to Steve with love.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

wow.... quite the comment....Walt, Edison and Ford....:yikes:



> Managing
> *Steve Jobs right up there with Edison and Ford*
> david ebner
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...


Steve Jobs right up there with Edison and Ford - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

screature said:


> I think Joker Eh was talking about Ive taking the stage at product announcements etc., not the being CEO... at least that was my take on it.


Guess it comes down to whether "taking the stage" is a metaphor (my take) or literal (your take). No one will ask, but I would be okay with Ive doing the public stuff. Think he'd be good?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It was Walter Gretzky who said, as advice, "Skate where the puck's going, not where it's been."

But, point taken Mr. Jobs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kazak said:


> Guess it comes down to whether "taking the stage" is a metaphor (my take) or literal (your take). No one will ask, but I would be okay with Ive doing the public stuff. *Think he'd be good?*


Indeed I do based on the videos I have seen which feature him when he talks about the design of Apple products. He's young and good looking (relatively speaking) and speaks passionately, so yes I think he would be good at making presentation for new products.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

And in other news, Apple is about $3 billion ahead of Exxon again to become the most valuable company in the world, despite the dire warnings of how its stock value would drop when Steve Jobs resigns. A good way to start the weekend.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Post removed. Please don't post any tabloid stories of Steve Jobs on ehMac.


----------



## 5andman (Oct 15, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Post removed. Please don't post any tabloid stories of Steve Jobs on ehMac.


Weren't those tabloid pics taken Feb 8 before he appeared in public for iPad2 launch?

*It seems those pics are being passed as recent pics? WTF?*


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I won't post it here (at the mayors request) but the most recent photo of Steve Jobs on the wires right now is very shocking... he is barley there. Unfortunately it appears that he has only a short while left... very sad.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The photos have been disputed as being a sick Photoshop hack. Blow it up yourself - there certainly appear to be incongruities along the neck, etc.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> The photos have been disputed as being a sick Photoshop hack. Blow it up yourself - there certainly appear to be incongruities along the neck, etc.


I only saw one photo taken apparently two days after his resignation. Looks real enough to me... it looks like it was shot from a camera phone but not an iPhone as the quality isn't that great.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> I only saw one photo taken apparently two days after his resignation. Looks real enough to me... it looks like it was shot from a camera phone but not an iPhone as the quality isn't that great.


I completely disagree with not allowing to post 'tabloid' stories.

I know TMZ maybe sleazy at times and known for their paparrazi, but I don't consider them to be 'tabloid' b/c most, if not all of their reporting - as invasive as it may be to the 'stars' etc.., is true. They've never posted stories about celebrities being abducted by aliens or 2 headed babies etc..

But I won't post it b/c i'm a good boy. i'm sure those pics (from tmz) are the same ones mentioned and i don't see how the photo can be doctored to have someone holding him up. To me, given his announcement that he could no longer perform his duties and then seeing those photos, it's not good for him. Unfortunately it looks like a natural progression from the WWDC event. Terrible to see anyone in that state. He's a father and husband first and foremost. A legend to us all 2nd.

But, maybe it's a just a pic of a weak guy who had just woken up. Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm surprised that ehMacians (a generally worldly and sophisticated lot) would take any photo at face value these days. There are people here with sufficient Photoshop skills to give us pics of a nice, plump Steve, if they chose. If the pics are fake, the fakers will be exposed by-and-by. If they are real, we won't have to wait long.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sans black mock turtleneck and mom jeans, I thought Steve looked remarkably like Ghandi in that picture. Or Jeebus.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

TMZ is a tabloid, even if it doesn't report on alien hybrid babies.

As for reliability, that is completely debatable. There are already accusations of photoshopping before any Steve Jobs pics. Also how do we know that is even steve jobs, let alone a photoshopped version? He looked pretty healthy in June, so I can be pretty skeptical.

I had to check this out to be able to fairly criticize it. But lets assume that the pictures are real, is it that important to anyone aside from his close family and friends?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> TMZ is a tabloid, even if it doesn't report on alien hybrid babies.
> 
> As for reliability, that is completely debatable. There are already accusations of photoshopping before any Steve Jobs pics. Also how do we know that is even steve jobs, let alone a photoshopped version? *He looked pretty healthy in June, so I can be pretty skeptical.
> *
> I had to check this out to be able to fairly criticize it. But lets assume that the pictures are real, *is it that important to anyone aside from his close family and friends?*


Look at what happened to Jack Layton in a few short weeks.

Yes.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> I won't post it here (at the mayors request) but the most recent photo of Steve Jobs on the wires right now is very shocking... he is barley there. *Unfortunately it appears that he has only a short while left... very sad.*


Over six months ago, a bunch of people were insisting he had just days or weeks to live. I mean, you'd try to tell them to just wait and see, don't go diagnosing people based on a photo, but no, they'd trot out their expertise with people on death's door and swear up and down that SJ was absolutely, unquestionably in that category -- _just look at the pictures!_ -- and surely about to die any day.

Six months ago.

So forgive me if I don't write the guy off just yet.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ertman said:


> I had to check this out to be able to fairly criticize it. But lets assume that the pictures are real, is it that important to anyone aside from his close family and friends?


as long as he's still involved with Apple by being chairmen of the board it is actually still important to apple share holders, and his health still can affect stock prices (although less dramatically).

Sorry but this is the reality of being a very public figure involved with the world's most successful company.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Over six months ago, a bunch of people were insisting he had just days or weeks to live. I mean, you'd try to tell them to just wait and see, don't go diagnosing people based on a photo, but no, they'd trot out their expertise with people on death's door and swear up and down that SJ was absolutely, unquestionably in that category -- _just look at the pictures!_ -- and surely about to die any day.
> 
> Six months ago.
> 
> *So forgive me if I don't write the guy off just yet.*


No one asked you to, he looks bad in the photo, there is that neutral enough for you.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> No one asked you to, he looks bad in the photo, there is that neutral enough for you.


So what? He's looked awful in photos for at least three years. 

You're entitled to your opinion and might turn out to be right, but with so many predictions of his imminent demise already proven wrong over the last few years (not sure, but I think the first ehMac threads go back even farther than three years), I find it a little odd that anyone still thinks they can conclude anything from a photo.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

screature said:


> Look at what happened to Jack Layton in a few short weeks.
> 
> Yes.





i-rui said:


> as long as he's still involved with Apple by being chairmen of the board it is actually still important to apple share holders, and his health still can affect stock prices (although less dramatically).
> 
> Sorry but this is the reality of being a very public figure involved with the world's most successful company.


I think you misunderstand my statement. In terms of being the chairman of Apple, sure, but the level of obsession, I disagree with.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't need doctored or otherwise photos to see that Steve Jobs is in really poor health. He is slowly disengaging from apple which is a responsible thing to do, and he is focusing on his health while allowing apple to stand on its own and fend for itself if necessary.

Beyond that, it becomes less anyone's business about his health. just my opinion. I wish him well. I wish the tabloids would screw off.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

TMZ has several times published photos provided to them that later turned out to be doctored. 

Even if it wasn't doctored (Which to me, it very obviously is), I find it extremely rude, garish and insensitive to publish them for people to gawk at. As is speculation on when Jobs will perish from the illness he's been bravely battling since ~ 2005. 

There are many members of ehMac, including myself, who have very close friends and family battling cancer and other illnesses. Please show some compassion and sensitivity when discussing these matters on ehMac.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> TMZ has several times published photos provided to them that later turned out to be doctored.
> 
> Even if it wasn't doctored (Which to me, it very obviously is), I find it extremely rude, garish and insensitive to publish them for people to gawk at. As is speculation on when Jobs will perish from the illness he's been bravely battling since ~ 2005.
> 
> *There are many members of ehMac, including myself, who have very close friends and family battling cancer and other illnesses. Please show some compassion and sensitivity when discussing these matters on ehMac.*


Having lost a brother, 3 uncles and 2 aunts to cancer and my father and grandfather having cancer when they died although it didn't kill them *I* don't certainly I need to be lectured to as to what a dreadful disease cancer.

Steve Jobs is a celebrity and speculation about the progression of his illness based on photos (doctored or not) is not unexpected, especially after he announced his resignation as CEO. 

I certainly did not make a post that was insensitive or lacking compassion to his plight but was merely expressing shock at the photo I saw and it was not on TMZ it may have originated from there but it is not where I saw it. 

I for one am personally very sorry for Steve Jobs' condition and I think most likely every one else here is as well, it doesn't mean that we should be muzzled in speaking about what is a VERY public situation so long as we are respectful and I don't think speculating about how long he has based on a photo that indicates he is deteriorating rapidly is disrespectful... cripes it happens among the immediate family members of those stricken with sever illness so why would it/should it be any different in a public forum/thread dedicated to Anything Mac when Steve Jobs is almost everything Mac... 

Time to get a grip and look at reality and not try and run away from it and hide.... In my experience that never makes anything better.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> So what? *He's looked awful in photos for at least three years*.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and might turn out to be right, but with so many predictions of his imminent demise already proven wrong over the last few years (not sure, but I think the first ehMac threads go back even farther than three years),* I find it a little odd that anyone still thinks they can conclude anything from a photo.*


Nowhere near this bad and the reason for my post as it shocked me. It is easy to conclude that if the photo is real he is in a very bad way and all I did was express my sorrow for that and my fear that he is not long for this world. If you choose to take offence as does the Mayor so be it.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> *Nowhere near this bad* and the reason for my post as it shocked me. It is easy to conclude that if the photo is real he is in a very bad way and all I did was express my sorrow for that and my fear that he is not long for this world. If you choose to take offence as does the Mayor so be it.


IMO the February paparazzi shots were equally discouraging. Certainly enough for a boatload of Internet MDs to give him five weeks to live. And yet he went on to do one or two product announcements after that, despite being obviously rather frail.

So I'm not so much offended as I am skeptical that any photo tells the whole story. No doubt the situation is very bad (and saddening) -- no photos required, it's right there in the resignation letter. But beyond that, I for one can't conclude anything. YMMV.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> Having lost a brother, 3 uncles and 2 aunts to cancer and my father and grandfather having cancer when they died although it didn't kill them *I* don't certainly I need to be lectured to as to what a dreadful disease cancer.
> 
> Steve Jobs is a celebrity and speculation about the progression of his illness based on photos (doctored or not) is not unexpected, especially after he announced his resignation as CEO.
> 
> ...


Most likely doctored, humiliating tabloid photos of Steve Jobs are not permitted on ehMac out of simple dignity and respect I have for Steve Jobs, not an effort to run and hide.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

It's a very sad situation. 

It' very discouraging to read him say he can't perform his duties anymore. It's a mixed statement since he probably feels his duties are so much more than the actual requirements are with being CEO. But still, this statement comes from the workaholic of all workaholics.

I hope he makes a full recovery, but it doesn't look good. They have pushed up the release date of his autobiography as well  

TMZ may very well be a tabloid paper but they like the Inquirer have a history of breaking stories first. They are unfortunately the new face of investigative journalism.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Most likely doctored, humiliating tabloid photos of Steve Jobs are not permitted on ehMac out of simple dignity and respect I have for Steve Jobs, not an effort to run and hide.


It has nothing to do with not showing the photos... that's your choice... it has to do with your other comments.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> It has nothing to do with not showing the photos... that's your choice... it has to do with your other comments.


And I strongly stand by them. Many disagree that just because Steve Jobs is deemed a "celebrity" that it should be open season to post humiliating photos along with speculation that it looks like he's probably dying soon.

I stand by the comments that it's disrespectful to many other ehMac members who have family or friends or who themselves are currently battling cancer or other serious diseases. 

My stance is against the tabloid exploitation of a person I and many of us deeply respect who is fighting cancer and the garish discussion about how long that person has to live based on those photos. 

I'm not going to change my principles on the issue and it's a stance that many ehMac members have expressed deep appreciation over. It's the same stance I had 6 months ago when people were speculating on his health based on leaked tabloid video.


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

*His replacement*

How about hiring the top guy from Cirque du Soleil. He has passion, vision, imagination and an obvious business model that works..


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(ATPM)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> (ATPM)


That hockey puck was a little inside-joke with us Canadians.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i never did see what was so bad about it, I still have one!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Any one click mouse has been a no starter for me for a very long time now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure. Now.

Just saying at the time. I don't use it anymore.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> sure. Now.
> 
> Just saying at the time. I don't use it anymore.


No not just now... over 15 years ago... it is one thing Windows always had over Apple until quite recently... a right clickin mouse. Just sayin'...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i think something's getting lost in the translation

nevermind


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I think a lot of people found the perfectly round shape awkward and uncomfortable in the hand. An object designed more for cool aesthetics than good functionality (unlike most Apple stuff, where form and function mesh well). 

I don't think many would disagree that mice have never been Apple's strong suit, even if you didn't mind the single button (that part didn't bother me). The only Apple mouse I've really liked is the current Magic Mouse. The one that came with the Mac SE and other models around that time was pretty good too, but mostly because it was noticeably less chunky than its immediate predecessor.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> I think a lot of people found the perfectly round shape awkward and uncomfortable in the hand. An object designed more for cool aesthetics than good functionality (unlike most Apple stuff, where form and function mesh well).
> 
> I don't think many would disagree that mice have never been Apple's strong suit, even if you didn't mind the single button (that part didn't bother me). *The only Apple mouse I've really liked is the current Magic Mouse. *The one that came with the Mac SE and other models around that time was pretty good too, but mostly because it was noticeably less chunky than its immediate predecessor.


I Agree 100%!! 

It is the first Apple mouse I have ever spent extra money for... i.e. one that didn't already come with the Mac.

For 99% of the time I love my Magic Mouse.... the 1% of the time that I don't is when posting to forums (like here) or using Lightroom at times.

I was a die hard Logitech mouse fan, of many stripes, until Apple developed the Magic Mouse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> i think something's getting lost in the translation
> 
> nevermind


Ok.... probably so... I was late to Macs... about 2002... So I didn't have to suffer long without right click capability on a Mac.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I still think one button mice were better. It forced developers to design menus properly, and there's no confusing buttons with novice users.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> I still think one button mice were better. *It forced developers to design menus properly*, and there's no *confusing buttons with novice users*.


How so the menu is the same whether you control + click or right click... 

If a novice can't figure out the difference between a right click and left click then they shouldn't be using a computer because that is about the most basic thing you could possibly have to know. They probably shouldn't be driving either for fear they will confuse the accelerator for the brake pedal.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> How so the menu is the same whether you control + click or right click...
> 
> If a novice can't figure out the difference between a right click and left click then they shouldn't be using a computer because that is about the most basic thing you could possibly have to know. They probably shouldn't be driving either for fear they will confuse the accelerator for the brake pedal.


I hate the right click. I set the mouse up to do the same on left or right click. Easy to do this on a Magic Mouse. I guess I never really understood the attraction of right-clicking.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> How so the menu is the same whether you control + click or right click...
> 
> If a novice can't figure out the difference between a right click and left click then they shouldn't be using a computer because that is about the most basic thing you could possibly have to know. They probably shouldn't be driving either for fear they will confuse the accelerator for the brake pedal.


For years single click was one of the things that had Macs ahead of Windoze boxes. No having to memorize when to right click to get where you want to go. Control click works just fine now that contextual menus have weasled their way into the OS. For all of that I very seldom have to resort to anything but the normal click and a single button mouse works just fine for me. Do sometimes use an MS mouse for the scroll wheel but even then get by nicely without the right click.

OTH Don't want to sound un-Canadian but the hockey puck mice were really terrible.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I hate the right click. I set the mouse up to do the same on left or right click. Easy to do this on a Magic Mouse. I guess I never really understood the attraction of right-clicking.





eMacMan said:


> For years single click was one of the things that had Macs ahead of Windoze boxes. No having to memorize when to right click to get where you want to go. Control click works just fine now that contextual menus have weasled their way into the OS. For all of that I very seldom have to resort to anything but the normal click and a single button mouse works just fine for me. Do sometimes use an MS mouse for the scroll wheel but even then get by nicely without the right click.
> 
> OTH Don't want to sound un-Canadian but the hockey puck mice were really terrible.


Toe each their own... contextual menus rock and make things much faster IMO. 

Also if you use Firefox as I do there are add ins that allow for customizable right click gestures... and they existed long before Apple came up with gestures on a track pad.

Not to mention gaming without right click capabilities would totally suck for many games.

I think the overwhelming market dominance of 2 click (and many more clicks than 2) mice in the market place shows that your preference for a single click mouse is in the vast minority.... but again to each their own.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I generally prefer the keyboard shortcut if it exists to right click/context menu.

This coming from pc and not really even knowing what keyboard shortcuts were, and relied solely on right click.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> ...
> I think the overwhelming market dominance of 2 click (and many more clicks than 2) mice in the market place shows that your preference for a single click mouse is in the vast minority.... but again to each their own.


Just shows that the major part of the mouse market is Windows and Windows=Right Click.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I generally prefer the keyboard shortcut if it exists to right click/context menu.
> 
> This coming from pc and not really even knowing what keyboard shortcuts were, and relied solely on right click.


A control + click requires the use of two hands to bring up a contextual menu so I do not see any advantage to having to use two input devices to do the same thing that can be done with one.

In fact if a person were to have one paralyzed limb or or only one limb at all, it would be very difficult indeed to bring up a contextual menu with a one click mouse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Just shows that the major part of the mouse market is Windows and Windows=Right Click.


No it shows overwhelming evidence that a dual or muti-click mouse is preferable to most as even Apple no longer makes a single click mouse (and hasn't since the Mighty Mouse). Apple=Right click now as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> A control + click requires the use of two hands to bring up a contextual menu so I do not see any advantage to having to use two input devices to do the same thing that can be done with one.
> 
> In fact if a person were to have one paralyzed limb or or only one limb at all, it would be very difficult indeed to bring up a contextual menu with a one click mouse.


well it depends on how you work. Most graphic multimedia people like myself I know, tend to use keyboard shortcuts, so my hand is on he keyboard most of the time, and command something is far more efficient to me, than right click, slide to the selection, and click again.

It's a question of how you work. I came from a PC and right click was my salvation, and I went from that to a one button mouse and keyboard and loved it. Though now I will use right click for some things like buried obscure functions if it makes sense.

While a disabled person would need special functions, (I'm involved in building a massive interactive that is fully accessible to all disabled people so I know about this), I don't know that that plays into what I would choose.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> well it depends on how you work. Most graphic multimedia people like myself I know, tend to use keyboard shortcuts, so my hand is on he keyboard most of the time, and command something is far more efficient to me, than right click, slide to the selection, and click again.
> 
> It's a question of how you work. I came from a PC and right click was my salvation, and I went from that to a one button mouse and keyboard and loved it. Though now I will use right click for some things like buried obscure functions if it makes sense.
> 
> While a disabled person would need special functions, (I'm involved in building a massive interactive that is fully accessible to all disabled people so I know about this), I don't know that that plays into what I would choose.


I use keyboard short cuts all the time... for most things actually, especially when working in Adobe apps such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Indesign, Dreamweaver etc... Even for most system operations such as launching apps via Quicksilver, mounting network drives switching apps etc.

However the right click primarily exists for contextual menus that allow you to easily get at things that some keyboard shortcuts don't exist for unless you set them up in a customized fashion through System Preferences or software like Quicksilver. At any rate there is nothing that makes a single click mouse "better" than a 2 or mutli-click mouse and as options are almost always good I can think of nothing, as some here have suggested that makes a single click mouse superior.

And once again for gaming 2 or multi-click mice are a god send for many.

As I have said to each their own and as you said it depends on the way you work but I see nothing but advantages to a 2 or multi-click mouse with no down side at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i wouldn't say one button mice are superior. Though most old school people I know would beg to differ. But, I would say, as a former pc user who over relied on right clicks and had very little knowledge of keyboard commands, it was the best 'bootcamp' for me. I recommend it to anyone for a while. After you're comfortable with a one button, switch to a multi button, and everything is bonus after. Just my experience there.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> How so the menu is the same whether you control + click or right click...
> 
> If a novice can't figure out the difference between a right click and left click then they shouldn't be using a computer because that is about the most basic thing you could possibly have to know. They probably shouldn't be driving either for fear they will confuse the accelerator for the brake pedal.


I'm taking about putting commands in the menu bar at the top of the screen, not in contextual menus. The commands are then all in one place and are more discoverable. When developers know all users have multi button mice, then they take shortcuts and only include commands in contextual menus, making the software harder to learn and use. The user then has to go around right-clicking on everything to find commands.

You can present ignorant and condescending statements about not knowing how to left and right click all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when contextual menus are designed for convenience rather an necessity, it makes most software easier to learn and use.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> I'm taking about putting commands in the menu bar at the top of the screen, not in contextual menus. The commands are then all in one place and are more discoverable. When developers know all users have multi button mice, then they take shortcuts and only include commands in contextual menus, making the software harder to learn and use. The user then has to go around right-clicking on everything to find commands.
> 
> You can present ignorant and condescending statements about not knowing how to left and right click all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when contextual menus are designed for convenience rather an necessity, it makes most software easier to learn and use.


I have to agree with this concept. Having functions buried in context menus ticks me when I encounter it too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> I'm taking about putting commands in the menu bar at the top of the screen, not in contextual menus. The commands are then all in one place and are more discoverable. When developers know all users have multi button mice, then they take shortcuts and only include commands in contextual menus, making the software harder to learn and use. The user then has to go around right-clicking on everything to find commands.
> 
> *You can present ignorant* and *condescending statements* about not knowing how to left and right click all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when contextual menus are designed for convenience rather an necessity, it makes most software easier to learn and use.


Ingnorant? No I have used computers for over 30 years... Condescending? To whom? Novices who can't figure out the difference between a left click and right click??? You bet.

I disagree that Menu Bar commands are more "discoverable" when any software with any modicum of complexity has a menu bar that is dense and multi-layered. 

Contextual menus are far more intuitive and "discoverable", when one wants to find a function or command that is "in context" to what they are doing *now*, all they have to do is right click and tada, your options are right there... it is the very reason why they were developed in the first place... for ease of use. 

So we fundamentally disagree and at this point we should probably just agree to disagree as we are not about to change either one's mind.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

The puck mouse was brutal. The Magic Mouse isn't much better. The Magic Mouse is by far the best wireless mouse I've used, bar none, for one reason - the tracking is surprisingly accurate for a Bluetooth mouse. I've found 98% of Bluetooth mice do not keep pace with hard-wired mice in terms of tracking (inc. the Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse which was terrible in this regard). But I'm particularly picky in this regard. Unfortunately, despite the good tracking ability of the Magic Mouse, it falls flat on its face for comfort because of its physical design. Yuck. Apple - get with it.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Lars said:


> The puck mouse was brutal. The Magic Mouse isn't much better. The Magic Mouse is by far the best wireless mouse I've used, bar none, for one reason - the tracking is surprisingly accurate for a Bluetooth mouse. I've found 98% of Bluetooth mice do not keep pace with hard-wired mice in terms of tracking (inc. the Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse which was terrible in this regard). But I'm particularly picky in this regard. Unfortunately, despite the good tracking ability of the Magic Mouse, it falls flat on its face for comfort because of its physical design. Yuck. Apple - get with it.


Heartily disagree. Love the Magic Mouse, including the flattish top for gestures. Simple, uncluttered, and easy to get the hang of. Big improvement over the inconsistent tracking ball on the Mighty Mouse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I've taken to the magic mouse as well. It took some getting used a bit, but the options are hard to beat, and the smooth top scrolling is brilliant.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I've taken to the magic mouse as well. It took some getting used a bit, but the options are hard to beat, and the smooth top scrolling is brilliant.


Ditto. I find it a wee bit narrow but overall it's a pleasure to use, scrolling is a dream, and the horizontal two-finger swipe is terrific - no more clicking the back or forward buttons when navigating websites. Battery life has been great so far - still at 100% after two weeks.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

I can't use the magic mouse... it's too small for my hands. The trackpad however, that's made me stop using a mouse altogether.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Ingnorant? No I have used computers for over 30 years... Condescending? To whom? Novices who can't figure out the difference between a left click and right click??? You bet.


Ignorant of the very research that led to the decision to use one button mice in the first place. Condescending in that you make the assumption that people confuse their left from their right, rather than when they should left-click and when they should right-click. Big difference. I still see novices not knowing if they should left or right click things, because there's nothing intuitive about which side you should click. That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they're not comfortable with the interface. The second button is just another hurdle.



> Contextual menus are far more intuitive and "discoverable", when one wants to find a function or command that is "in context" to what they are doing *now*, all they have to do is right click and tada, your options are right there... it is the very reason why they were developed in the first place... for ease of use.


I don't disagree that contextual menus are handy - once you learn to use the software. But no, they are not more discoverable when the developer feels they can put commands exclusively in the contextual menu. There's nothing to indicate what you can and can't right-click on. When you have a global menu bar that is designed properly, you can learn by browsing the menus - they're much more inviting than randomly right-clicking on everything, hoping that something comes up.


> So we fundamentally disagree and at this point we should probably just agree to disagree as we are not about to change either one's mind.


Now that I've provided the reasons for my opinion, I agree, errr disagree.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I deeply regret being the instigating factor in derailing this thread on the end of Steve Job's tenure as iCEO into a years-late debate on the merits of single-button mice.

I mean... _sheesh!_


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> ....*Now that I've provided the reasons for my opinion, I agree, errr disagree.*


You haven't proven anything... you have expressed your opinions and your reasons for them, ones that are not reflected in the reality of the the marketplace. 2 or mutlti-click mice have proven themselves to be far more popular even among Apple users and why Apple abandoned making single click mice a long time ago.

Stay stuck in your ways... your welcome to them, but you haven't proven a thing. 

Here's a mouse you may enjoy, based on the supposed research you refer to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I deeply regret being the instigating factor in derailing this thread on the end of Steve Job's tenure as iCEO into a years-late debate on the merits of single-button mice.
> 
> I mean... _sheesh!_


Yes it has been a derailment of the thread but it seemed to have run its course in terms of posts relevant to the initial topic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> Ditto. I find it a wee bit narrow but overall it's a pleasure to use, scrolling is a dream, and the horizontal two-finger swipe is terrific - no more clicking the back or forward buttons when navigating websites. Battery life has been great so far - still at 100% after two weeks.


Yep the Magic Mouse is terrific... first Apple mouse I actually have enjoyed using and not had to resort to a 3rd party mouse to make up for the deficiencies of an Apple produced mouse.


----------

