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.

I always think first and foremost as a technology consumer and lover. Like all of us who appreciate the quality of Apple products, I have mixed feelings. I grew up with core values of openness and sharing of technology. When I ran dial-a-joke it was illegal to own, use or purchase your own telephone or answering machine. You couldn't connect anything to the phone jack except that which you leased from AT&T. You had little choice and there was no room for outside innovators. We techies all said this was a bad thing. You probably see the parallel.

Let's look at Apple. Apple's real rise from the small market-share Macintosh company to the iProducts of today began with iTunes and the iPod. This turned out to be a 2nd huge business which roughly doubled Apple's 'size'. If you remember, we ported iTunes to Windows. We now addressed 100% of the world's market with this integrated system (iPod/iTunes) and it began the era of Apple that we are now in. So why don't we port iTunes to Android? Did something get closed up? I love Apple products and iTunes and wish it were on my Android products too.

I don't have time to get into this far because I'm in the middle of 5 conference calls today and have a ton of engineering submissions to judge for an award and some iPhones to exchange so I'm sorry if things are going slowly here on Slashdot.

Too many jokes to have a favorite. Your quote reminds me of a Blue Collar comedy response to the answer "make lemonade." Ron White said he wanted to find the person whose life gave them vodka."

I had favorite jokes in the days before PC but they were mostly Polish jokes. The Polish American Congress, inc. threatened me with lawsuits for defaming Polish people. I asked if it was ok to tell them as Italian jokes instead and they said, "fine."

I told a joke at the Engineering graduation at U. Colorado, Boulder once to point out how people don't think logically. Q: What do you call four Mexicans in Quicksand? A: Quatro cinco (sinko). It doesn't stereotype or demean Mexicans. It's a funny use of words. But I got told that I had offended 400 people.

When I took foreign languages I tried to get to the point where I could make a joke all in that language. Japanese words were so different than ours that I thought I'd never be able to construct a joke that any American would get. Then we learned that the word for umbrella was kasa. The next class day I was walking to class with my son and it started sprinkling. I pulled out my umbrella and said "mi casa su casa." (kasa).

A lot of things about me don't get filtered. My wife at the time, in early Apple days, was in Eastern Star. If I became a Freemason I could go to more events with her. I did become a Freemason and know what it's about but it doesn't really fit my tech/geek personality. Still, I can be polite to others from other walks of life. After our divorce was filed I never attended again but I did contribute enough for a lifetime membership. There is nothing wrong with the Freemasons. It's like any group or religion or cult with various rituals. They may make no sense to many but they are fun for those who participate. There's no real political or institutional standing that can impress values on others, but I couldn't say that Freemasonry has explicit values beyond what any member perceives.

Same as always my whole life. It's the fun 'toy' aspect of technology. I would take my kids to carnivals and spend $40 throwing darts or $40 tossing ping pong balls. Now we just download an app at home or on the sidewalk and it's free or nearly free and benefits our lives and leads us to love our technology, so the toys we adults have are very inexpensive!

Back in the days when we bought parts and built our own devices there was great variation. Not many in a single school had that 'build' life. And most of it was constructing kits according to instruction, not creating new things yourself. So if you built your own things from nothing but a goal, you were unusual when young. The same thing is the case today, with the Make crowd, formal and informal. It may not be reduced. It's just that the simplicity of the early days is gone so to us who have lived through it, things are not similar and available to all.

Humans all have similar brains, and the inner tinkerer refers to a slice of our brains. On the average, I believe that it's fairly constant, this slice. If there is less room to build something impressive enough to motivate you, then the creativity looks for other outlets, like outstanding Facebook pages, blogs, YouTube videos, etc.

This "well known fact" is news to me.

I have not applied for Australian citizenship but have taken some first steps towards it. I would very gladly be a devoted and loyal Australian. This has nothing to do with the NBN, which I do praise in concept, regardless of whether it even exists. I would love to be an Australian even with lower bandwidth like I have today in the States. I do applaud any attempts toward inclusion of all. For things as important as broadband, we should deal with our fellows as family and take care of those who just live in the wrong place. That's my personal opinion but it has nothing to do with why I would love to reside in Australia.

Cheers, mates

I used to disdain all these vague futurists. in many cases, it's sure to happen in the far distant future, and after the fact a few act smart enough to have said it long before. And many times it doesn't happen close to the way that's predicted. I always tended toward the practical side of things, rather than the theoretical.

But one thing after another after another that was obvious and predictable just by applying Moore's law, still surprised almost everyone when they became reality. Things like lots of movies on a tiny chip.

I was a singlularity denier, for one thing. But I have to reverse myself and admit that I'm wrong. Oddly, it was Ray, presenting to an audience in Vienna, which convinced me otherwise. The only thing about being a singularity futurist is that you've predicted what's already happened. Try living without today's technology and internet and see how far you get. It's already unclear to what extent the creators (ourselves) or that which we have created (technology) is the master. We always thought that we could turn off unfriendly robots, but we can't really turn off the internet, which is the largest robot yet (and the one that replaces most human brains for getting the best answers to things).

Ray takes a lot of flak but he deserves respect, even when you think he's wrong.

Not only that, but think of what it's doing to inspire his kids.

Actually, we never had a 9l11 in 50 years preceding it, despite the fact that it was just as easy. 9/11 was a lucky fluke, a super ambitious prank-style act of terrorism that took a lot of planning but took the top prize ever in such acts. We had no reason to expect it to happen in another 50 years, especially since it relied on surprise. I agree with this post that hightened security has not played a significant role in stopping another 9/11. Nor have any of the costly wars. But some people have to say the opposite in order to hide their own guilt of taking the side which wasted so much money on nothing (gained). These people scream that such actions do buy us security in order to save their own faces.

HP-35 calculator 2.02 log/antilog problem.

Not big in a disaster sense but noteworthy.