Talk:Steve Jobs

I think the correct term was that he was supposed to "modify" the circuit

Where it states: "In mid-1975, after returning to Atari, Jobs was assigned to create [this should be "modify" I believe] a circuit board for the arcade video game Breakout.[65] According to Bushnell, Atari offered $100 (equivalent to about $500 in 2021) for each TTL chip that was eliminated in the machine. Jobs had little specialized knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari engineers, Wozniak reduced the TTL count to 46, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line.[66] According to Wozniak, Jobs told him that Atari paid them only $700 (instead of the actual $5,000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $350.[67] Wozniak did not learn about the actual bonus until ten years later, but said that if Jobs had told him about it and explained that he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[68]"

You can't "eliminate" chips from a design you haven't "created" yet. It's either that or they wanted him to minimize the amount of TTL IC's to be used in a design.

But from what I've read, Atari had a board, it cost too much to make and was too large, so therefor they wanted it to be reduced in size and complexity .

But irregardless, he wasn't able to do it - Wozniak did it.

Wamnet (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Great question; I looked it up. That's indeed in both Isaacson 2011 ("design") and Schlender & Tetzeli 2015 ("create"). Both books can be borrowed for free from the links I give. Also Isaacson: There would be a bonus, Bushnell told him, for every chip fewer than fifty that he used. If you can find a source that contradicts, please post it here.

I'm still not happy with the section though. Most is sourced to a blog. And Isaacson says Wozniak used only forty-five chips. Recollections differ, but by most accounts Jobs simply gave Wozniak half of the base fee and not the bonus Bushnell paid for saving five chips, which contradicts what we have now. However, while Linzmayer 2004 ("Apple Confidential 2.0", a solid book) agrees on "4 days", it quotes Woz as saying: “Nolan Bushnell wanted a game with as few chips as possible. Steve said if there were less than 50 chips, we got paid $700 and split it in half. Less than 40 chips, $1,000. After four nights, it was 42 chips. I wasn’t about to spend another second trying to reduce it by two more chips; I’ll settle for $700.” (notice: one says 42 chips, one says 45).

There's also something we omit in our article: according to Isaacson (page 53), Bushnell knew that Jobs was not a great engineer, but he assumed, correctly, that he would recruit Wozniak, who was always hanging around. “I looked at it as a two-for-one thing,” Bushnell recalled. “Woz was a better engineer.” (btw, "always hanging around" is supported by Malone 1999, too). I'll try to rework this later if I have time, but would rather wait until we figure out whether it was 46, 45 or 42 chips. We need a source that resolves the discrepancy. DFlhb (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, found it. In 2009, Woz said 45 chips[1]. And in 2013, he said "I got it down to 42, but it went back to 45 before it ran well". So every source is now congruent, with only the current blogspam source saying "46". DFlhb (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Innovations and designs section

Don't like this section. It should explain his role in these products, his decision-making, etc., not just plainly describe the products. And I think the description of his role would best fit within the general chronology of the biography, rather than as a separate "Products" section. DFlhb (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverts to lead

@Flyedit32: why do you persist in reverting despite policy? In articles, when unsourced content is reverted, it stays out until affirmative consensus is reached (WP:BURDEN).

The first sentence is for occupations. Making one investment in Pixar doesn't make Jobs an investor. You've removed entrepreneur, which is verifiable and WP:BLUESKY, and reinstated "magnate", which is neither. I'd have added "innovator" (along with proper sources) but inventor is fine too. DFlhb (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In a more recent edit, you've hinted that your disputed changes are covered by MOS:LEAD. That is false, since neither labels ("magnate" and "investor") are cited in the body. I've explained on your talk page that the first lead sentence is for definitional labels; to call him an investor, we need a multitude of sources that call him that, not just sources that show he made one investment at one point in his life. You've edit warred to keep your preferred unsourced wording in the lead, and then refused to discuss, perhaps in the hopes that it gets to stay in. This is neither productive nor collaborative. Again, please self-revert. DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Obscure and incorrectly written acronym or initialism “woo”

Section “Health problems”, second paragraph, last word in the following excerpt:

However, cancer researcher and alternative medicine critic David Gorski wrote that "it's impossible to know whether and by how much he might have decreased his chances of surviving his cancer through his flirtation with woo.

Both of the references for the above excerpt contain “woo”. I note that “WOO” or “WoO” stands for “Window of Opportunity” per the following:

https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2020.38.29_suppl.181#:~:text=Background%3A%20In%20%E2%80%9Cwindow%20of%20opportunity,and%20definitive%20anti%2Dcancer%20treatment. In “window of opportunity” (WOO) clinical trials, people with newly diagnosed early-stage cancer are exposed to an experimental drug during the period of time between diagnosis and definitive anti-cancer treatment. These trials allow investigators to study drug efficacy in untreated disease, which can expedite drug development. However, for trial participants, the WOO approach requires them to decide about an altruistic clinical trial during an intense time immediately after cancer diagnosis. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOO clinical trials.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04644289 WoO: Window of Opportunity Trial of Olaparib and Durvalumab in Histologically Proven EOC (WoO)

Should a reference to the meaning of “woo” (I don’t know whether it’s an acronym or an initialism) and the fact that it should have been written as “WOO” or “WoO” (if both are considered to be correct) in the excerpt’s references be included? I suppose the easiest thing would be to replace “woo” with “[WOO]” (if that’s considered acceptable) and make it a link to the ascopubs.org page above which defines it. Dbsx (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See wiktionary:woo#Etymology 3, which leads to wiktionary:woo woo#Noun — DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This entire section has GOT to be a POE, right? This comment proceeds from a false assumption that woo is an initialization or acronym; it isn't.

The term woo generally refers to pseudoscientific pursuits — particularly pseudoscientific modalities in medicine. We all have blind spots, but to have failed to perform a simple Google search for: "woo medicine" is a hell of an oversight.

So perhaps today was the day you and other readers learned that woo is a term used extensively by science communicators. It's even used right here on Wikipedia

themoreyouknow.gif Jeffnathan (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly concur with User:Dbsx. I specialized in the history of science as an undergraduate in one of the highest-ranked history departments in the world and I've never heard of that term.

I just ran some Google searches against skepticalinquirer.org. It looks like the term "woo" was very rare before 2018. Even if the term is becoming more commonly used in pseudoscience circles, it is still unheard of in the mainstream media. For example, searching Google News returns a lot of recent results for Bryan Woo, and one mention of the longer related term "woo-woo" from the New York Post.

This looks like a straightforward application of WP:NOT. WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion or an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is not the place to go about promoting such an obscure term. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just how Gorski speaks, and he's not soapboxing to promote the word. I checked and it's in the Oxford dictionary (both long-form and short-form). There's nothing to see here, he's an expert, why would we literally argue over semantics? DFlhb (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's tempting to dive into a treatise on the timeline of the use of the term woo-woo (now frequently shortened to woo) and how James Randi may have coined the term (and that he began holding The Amazing Meeting conference in 2003. Or that David Gorski is an editor of Science-Based Medicine. Or Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago evolutionary biology professor and author of Why Evolution is True wrote in 2011 that Woo may have killed Steve Jobs.

There's extensive support for the premise that Jobs belief and adherence to pseudoscientific treatments delayed his receiving appropriate treatment. As a compromise may I suggest using the term woo within the body of related text but not as the basis of a section heading? Jeffnathan (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we create a template series for Jobs?

Should we create a series template for Jobs like there is for Musk or Gates? It wouldn't have to be too long or anything, but I do feel like there is plenty to use for it, and it could help with reader navigation, too. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Steve Jobs was not an inventor

He was a businessman that revealed technology to mass media and the public. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Early Venture capital Jobs talked to

Add in "Pre-Apple" Nolan Bushnell recommended Steve Jobs to Don Valentine who in turn introduced him to Mike Markkula. https://articles.sequoiacap.com/apple-story Linzmayer 2004, pp. 8–10 207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not specific enough. Hello, and thank you for your edit request. So that I can implement those changes, I'd like you to provide me with those 2 things:

• The text you wish to add; and
• Where exactly (between which sentences) the given text should be added.

Thank you! Cocobb8 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Reed Jobs, the son of Steve Jobs

I recently created a draft for Reed Jobs. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

birth name

Actually, Steve's original birth name was Abdul Lateef John Jandali. 97.118.121.7 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that says that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This was previously discussed, where the conclusion was that GulfNews was the only outlet saying this, and wasn't independently confirmed, so the sourcing isn't good enough to include. And given Jobs's fame, and the large number of books written about him, anything that didn't make the cut in those books would likely be undue anyway. DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, slight WP:OR: per Isaacson's biography, his 'birth' mother planned (not fully by choice, mind you) to put him for adoption before he was born, and he was placed in a family immediately upon birth. Intuitively that would mean that his "real" birth name is what his adoptive parents picked. DFlhb (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

Hi Wikipedia, I have a lot of knowledge I have read from books and would like to share with everyone, I am an enthusiastic person, and trustworthy, I would like to share my prior and current knowledge with everyone using Wikipedia

Thank You, BobYan69 BobYan69 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Need help resolving this lead sentence edit-war

Steven Paul Jobs (February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011) was an American business magnate, inventor, and investor best known as the co-founder [...]

The lead sentence has been repeatedly changed this past year, with slow-motion edit warring instead of talk page discussions. I disputed "business magnate" and "investor" above as against MOS:ROLEBIO, and the user who reinstated them didn't discuss on talk. Mechanical Keyboarder disputed Flyedit32's bold addition of "inventor", and I've come to agree since it's redundant with the end of the first paragraph, but this was reinstated several times without discussion.

Could we all collaborate on what the lead sentence should say? How about the simplest, "American entrepreneur"? The relevant guidelines are MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:ROLEBIO. DFlhb (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

In the Health problems > Death section, add at the end of the 5th paragraph:

Richard Stallman commented on his death: "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone". Flakesosa (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Why? Pinchme123 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox photo

Can we get a better infobox photo? Why do we have the infobox photo of him near the end of his life? The 1984 portrait of him is better for the infobox photo in my humble opinion. Ccole2006 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Need to be paraphrased

To be honest, some parts of early life section is a bit confusing to me. Paul, Jobs, Paul Jobs, Clara, Clara Hagopian. Arggh, sometimes I saw no clear distinction of what refers to what. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

According to Wozniak, Jobs told him that Atari paid them only $750 (instead of the actual $5,000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $375.

Change the wording to be the same as Steve Wozniak's page, where it is much clearer that Steve Jobs scammed his best friend. It is ambiguous enough here to where I didn't realize what had happened. It sounds like he was only paid $750.

Corrected version (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak) : Jobs had little knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, by using RAM for the brick representation. The fact that this prototype had no scoring or coin mechanisms meant Woz's prototype could not be used. Jobs was paid the full bonus regardless. Jobs told Wozniak that Atari gave them only $700 and that Wozniak's share was thus $350 (equivalent to $2,400 in 2023).[33][5]: 147–148, 180  Wozniak did not learn about the actual $5,000 bonus (equivalent to $34,300 in 2023) until ten years later. While dismayed, he said that if Jobs had told him about it and had said he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[34]: 104–107  Quantumcon (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I think the 1984 portrait of him is better for the infobox than the cuurent one, which shows him at the near end of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccole2006 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The current photo shows him as he was known holding his greatest business achievement. Trillfendi (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The Mac could have also arguably been one of his greatest achievements too. Ccole2006 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's......why it's aleady there. You reposted that same image for no reason which is already in the article, and you already posted this topic on this very page with the same meaningless rationale. This is a "good" status and very stable article so please stop the broken record of nitpicking. — Smuckola(talk) 01:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine. At the very least, can we get a cropped photo of the 2010 photo? That's seem to be a standard for BLP's. Ccole2006 (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

Add “né Abdullateef Jandali” in first line. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: #birth name. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Please change this introduction phrase:

He died of respiratory arrest related to the tumor

to:

He died of tumor-related respiratory arrest

Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)