I am so much a pacifist.

But once when I was very young, and I don't remember it directly, there was a bully and he chased me off or hit me. My mom said to fight my own battles. I misunderstood and came up and punched him. I did wind up with a black eye. I did not learn any important life lesson.

I believe in using brain to influence people, not braun.

Since my youth, I can't even remember having animosity toward any person. If we disagree, that's all. I can think my own way but never have to convince others. Dave Mason sang "there ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's only you and me, and we just disagree." That means a lot to me. A lot of my personality and values comes from songs. Dylan sang "you were right from your side, I was right from mine, we're both just one too many mornings, and a thousand miles behind."

My greatest happiness is in my feelings about all people of this planet. I'm not part of any religion but life is very happy and the greatest experience of life (word play intended). But the worth of my life, especially conflicts and resolution, would not be possible without every single person who plays a role in this game of life. I walk through airports and look at everyone there, smiling, knowing that their existence somehow is part of the greatest thing to me. Even if someone came up and robbed me or killed me, I know that I'd consider that part of this great game of existence.

But this game would be nothing without a lot of jokes!

Mine too. I had never worked with any disk drive of any type nor any operating system. A chance popped up that if I had a working floppy disk in 2 weeks I could go to the city of Las Vegas. Having no idea how they worked I put my head together and thought out a simple scheme with some clever parts (state machine) and it truly was a miracle. Today I have no idea how you create things in such a way. They couldn't have motivated me with money or stock, but getting to Las Vegas was worth it.

The sort of recommendations you hear are often about teaching procedures and outstanding teachers and alternate education approaches. But these recommendations have been the same for hundreds of years so they won't achieve the real change.

Computers offered a real change in the tools of the classroom, but they don't seem to have changed much. The learning is the same, only done via computers, for the most part. I had hoped for more.

I do want to feel a part of the big improvement someday, so I hope that there is some further step with computers. That would be when a computer becomes conscious and caring and becomes the best friend that each student wants to be with. It will look at their faces and speak the way that particular student likes and be a good friend more than a teacher.

One thing that has not changed over time in education is that we all, in a class, get the same material presentation together. The same pages as everyone else on Monday, the same pages on Tuesday, etc. Individuals as we are, we have different lapses along the way. A teacher could back up and explain something to fill in a gap, but each of the 30 students has different 'gaps'. The solution will be the equivalent of one teacher per student.

This opens the door to a student choosing to get only straight A's, and only studying subjects they want to. And there will be more room to teach thinking and creativity and not all the same answer, which is not even their own answer, but out of a book. It's a brave step, but right.

I learned the capital cities of all 50 states. How could anyone in life ever need to know such a worthless thing. The only worth is to show you can memorize it. But today it gets turned into a grade and a determination of what intelligence is. We have to break from that paradigm but can't with today's 30-student classes. Or should I say "day care?"

Schools are short of money because students don't get a vote and votes turn into money. It's a bad consequence of finding education to be a right and that means it has to be supplied by government. Government money follows votes. A family of 5 gets no more votes than a family of 2. Which wants the better school? But the votes by families of 2 are against more money for schools.

My visions of the computer were in terms of what it would do for users. We have taken great strides in the directions I hoped for but many things I never imagined or thought about came to be. Most of what is precious to us today I never imagined. The amount of computer in our phones. But then again, I didn't envision cell phones. Or the full blown internet with broadband.

The steps we have taken have been ones that made the computer more and more a part of ourselves, like a 'friend'. This human quality I expect to get better over time. I do envision conscious computers but I think we'll stumble onto the formula (circuit of a brain) by accident, the way we came upon Google replacing smart people for answers, but not by trying to create a brain.

All of them. The question is one of priority and ROI. I say develop technologies for a long time until the cost is very reduced and then go on such long missions. It's not easy but we'll get there. No need to waste resources getting there before the right time.

There is no one right opinion. I'm for more openness. I believe that you can create the best most innovative products even when they are open. But I could be wrong. Open products tend to seem more complex. I suggest that maybe 80% of us or more are technophobes and scared to admit how little we know. I'm thinking of our moms and dads a lot in this thought. Apple is the safest haven for them not to get confused.

So much of me lies in the Linux and open source thinking. It's where I'd be if I were young and finding my technology way. Some say that Apple iPhones are closed but there is a different view. They are closed as to methods of sale and delivery. You can create any app you want to and have the ability to on your own on the iPhone. You just can't distribute it to huge numbers of people outside the app store of Apple. So young developers are not hindered totally. Yeah, on Android you can do anything for fun and announce it to the whole world and that's very motivating. So keep it up. I have always given my support to the jailbreak community because they remind me of myself when I met Steve Jobs and how we were, then and for the years leading to Apple.

I am a technologist and don't like being a sociologist or politician. Words can be abused in those field but our code works or it doesn't work.

At first it seemed that our digital life would make us freer to be masters at getting what we needed solved, due to costs per application. But it led to digital codes which blocked our ability to copy things. The deep value is that you can record any TV show you watch but when they block the digital copying, you have to point a video camera at your TV screen. Of course these digital restrictions are much deeper than that but it seems that the companies and powerful win and the consumers lose in this game of civil rights. I worry that it will get worse, not better, over time.

I think 3D printers may be a big factor in the future hobby market. But sometimes such products have application outside of the hobby market, applications which you can't pin down at first. The Apple ][ could do a lot of things but the unseen killer app Visicalc really changed things. Maybe for 3D printers it's low cost and high resolution that will lead to something we can't imagine now. When we started Apple we didn't imagine enough memory to hold a song.

Our union was very lucky. I think it was luckier for Jobs since I had strong internal philosophies that didn't connect my happiness with business success or money or power. I built projects for myself and the Apple ][ was the 6th of those that Jobs saw (when he got into town) and said we could sell them. We always split the money evenly as far as I knew but money is not my thing in life. My best days were in the lab building things for myself. But I'm so nice that I give almost all my time now to young people and fans that I can help. I love my life the way it is and told that to Jobs in one of our last phone calls before his death.

Maybe because I'm too close to things I just think of my computer needs and desires being satisfied now by devices that are computers in portable packages. The days of being fixed to a larger machine are over. It's easier to throw an iPhone out the window than a Macintosh!

So many say it and I feel that logically it's incorrect to thank me. Like in early Apple days I could not understand why anyone would ask an engineer for an autograph. I made it a point to remain an engineer rather than run a company. But your thank you's mean that you are happy with what technology has brought to your life. In that regard I have to thank myself too, ha ha.

Who knows? Back then we knew how to make good new versions of our computers to satisfy the needs of our Macintosh market. But we didn't do radically different things until the iMac. We should keep a watch for Apple returning to just milking its existing markets and not astounding us with new categories of products, or totally astounding ones. There is always a danger. And my personal opinion is that if it goes sour, it might have gone sour with Jobs there so conclusions should not be drawn. That is not constructive for Apple.

Apple was a one product company back then. Now we are very diversified and strong. If one product suffers we can recover based on the income and profits from our other sectors. We have computers, laptops, iTunes, iPods, retail stores, online Apple Store, iPhones, iPads [and Apple TV?]. We also have a strong culture of innovation that is well understood, not only by those in control but by our customers, who set a lot of our direction in terms of their expectations.

We did go through a period of introducing a lot of key younger talent when Steve Jobs returned. One suggestion is that we look at doing that again.

It's wrong to look back. It's not scientific and testable. But I saw for the last few years one small screen in the midst of a lot of large screen and felt myself, as countless others must have, that the larger screens had more value. Blame me for taking the leeway to suggest that this was the one door Apple left wide open. iPhones are not inferior to other smartphones, and the cost is similar. iOS 6 is not inferior to Android. We could all get by with either of them. I never said this sort of thing about Windows. So there has to be some reason that Apple lost so many sales to other products. It may not be screen size as much as the number of players and products in the market. But are we saying the rest of the world has better marketing than Apple?

As an Apple shareholder, what matters is not sales or market share. It's profitability. Apple seems to stand alone in profit market-share. So the course they are taking is a good one. It's hard to guess whether profits would be greater or lesser under hypothetical scenarios.

The app store has changed our lives. We depend on Apple leadership. Most of the software I feel is in apps. You speak of iOS becoming less relevant as though other platforms are as good but I think of it more in terms of the fact that for all major platforms, there are more than enough apps and they are generally the same quality on each platform.

It's better to think constructively about what can be done with our mobile platforms to improve our lives more, rather than trying to throw darts and insults.

Most powerful? Or most valuable? And in adjusted dollars, IBM was triple the size. Remember that IBM sold 30,000 1401's at the equivalent of $25M of today's dollars. Do the math.

The concept is that power and wealth often lead to corruption. Business ethics are not the same as personal ethics. But that is not your main question.

I wish that instead of all these lawsuits Apple was sitting down and cross-licensing with the other players. They have come up some very good features without complicating the UI. Things like a palm swipe to take a screen snapshot. I would like my iPhone to be the best it could, even if someone else did some of the things first. And Apple could license iTunes perhaps, or help the other platforms develop it. The market shares would probably remain the same but we consumers would all win.