Talk:Steve Wozniak

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Not copyrighted

Time and again some portions of my articles have been removed as "copyrighted"!!! Please do not do that again: I indeed pasted it ready-made; however, I pasted it from my own article (http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm#Steve%20Wozniak). Please feel free to expand upon this text, but I would appreciate if you would leave this note intact. One reason is that I would not like anyone ever think that I steal material from Wikipedia to write my own articles! I just thought this would be a nice contribution. -- Piotr Wozniak

Piotr, I have to ask -- any relation to the Woz?

Also, you wrote that Woz is "universally credited with initiating the entry of computers into private homes." Really? Shouldn't that place in history be shared with his business partner, Steve Jobs?

<>< Tim Chambers

Relative timing

I also wonder about the relative timing and influence of Apple II vs. Altair; Commodore PET; Tandy; Heathkit; Atari 400/800; TI99; Sinclare; ... How was Woz's contribution unique compared to these others? Where was he first, and where did it matter? The fact that he was a garage hardware hacker is the most unique quality I can see, and the last unique contribution Apple attempted to make was Steve Jobs putting Multitasking and GUI features (Taken from PARC) in the Lisa. The MAC was a lame compromise.

--Jonathan--

I can share a little of my experience at the time: a few hobbyist-geeks (like me) had CP/M machines at home before the Apple II came out, and the TRS/80 and Commodore PET came out first, but it really was the Apple II that made the term "home computer" meaningful. I agree with Tim, though, that this was due no less to Jobs' marketing than Wozniak's technical genius, though some of that marketing involved selling Wozniak's personality. On the other hand, the Apple II was a technical marvel for being able to pack as much functionality as it had into a small single circuitboard with cheap parts, making it affordable for ordinary folks; Wozniak certainly deserves credit for that as well (the video system in particular was pure genius). Before the Apple II, the guy on your block with a computer was like that guy on your block with a ham radio--something of an oddity. It wasn't until Apple IIs invaded homes and schools everywhere that people started sharing programs and data, and that's when the personal computer era really took off. Users of other computers had to form their own user groups to share things, and had some moderate following, but Apple was kind of the "default" PC of the time (until the IBM PC took over). --LDC

Naturally, Steve Wozniak (tech-brain) and Steve Jobs (market wiz) were two vital organs of the same organism that would not walk when incomplete. If the text leaves this in doubt, please edit the place where it arises
My understanding is that Apple I was a quantum leap over Altair, and all models and brands that followed were inevitably relegated to become footnotes to history. Quantification is impossible but if all designs were to be deleted from history, probably Apple would leave the greatest footmark on the future
Name Wozniak is as popular in Poland as Smith in the US :)

"Affordability" is a key factor. As important a contribution as the technical features. That's why, in the long run, Macintosh was so much more important than Lisa (or Star). Re the success of the original Apple (II), I believe that the early availability of an affordable floppy disk drive (thanks again to Woz's genius) was the most important factor. - HWR

- You are right with affordability. However, it resulted from Woz'es ability to put three chips where others would put four. Hence I consider his technical expertise as the root of Apple's success -- Piotr Wozniak

Hagiography

Wow! Quite the hagiography. -- The Cunctator

Affordability

If affordability was the key the Commodore Vic20/64 and Sinclare really did the most for creating the HOME computer, and were at least as important as the Apple II (the Apple 1 was just a hobbiest machine like the Heathkit). The floppy drive was good, but at $600 hardly affordable. Jobs did a really good job of marketing to schools displacing the TRS/80 machines which were their first. In 1982 the Apple II was still quite expensive compared to the C64 with less memory and inferior graphics and sound. The Atari 800 was also a pretty strong machine at the time, and probably was the first HOME computer with good multi-media capabilities. None of this discounts Woz, but I object to saying that he created the PC. The technology in the Lisa, marketing to education, and the expansion slots in the Apple II were probably Apples biggest innovations.

--Jonathan--

I have to disagree. I was there (at least in the US market--I understand the UK market of the time was very different). The Commodore machines and the Sinclair never really mattered. Sure, they were cheap, and had somthing of a cult following, but the numbers never got anywhere close to those of the Apple II. The Sinclair machine was hopelessly underpowered and not well-supported, so it flopped completely in the US (it had some success in the UK). The Commodore machines (PET/VIC-20/C-64) fared somewhat better, but they shot themselves in the foot by not being compatible with each other, not being upgradeable, not supporting third-part software well, etc. I think their market share may have gone as high as 15%, but they were never really a factor. The one that came closest to Apple II's dominance was the Radio Shack TRS-80, pushed by the power of Tandy corp and using then-standard CP/M. Their techonolgy fell behind though (most notably lack of color), so they faded away.

I wouldn't say "Woz created the PC" either, but I would definitely say that the Apple II was the PC that put the term "PC" in the mouths of the American public, and Woz's innovations (its video system, its floppy system, its expansion slot system, and others) helped significantly (as did Jobs' marketing). --LDC

Numbers, please

I could be wrong, but my perception was that in the USA of the machines being sold IN 1983 that Commordore was a MUCH larger market share than 15% (more like 30% vs. 35% for Apple). Futhermore, Europe was even more strongly in the Commodore camp. Real numbers would be a really interesting addition to this article. :-)

Apple II was a business machine

In the US, he Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, Sinclair, etc. were strictly consumer machines, not taken seriously by businesses. The Apple II sold to businesses as well as prosumers and hobbyists, which is why it was important; its success got the attention of Xerox, DEC, IBM. In addition, the Apple II was already well-established by the time these machines appeared. 1983? By that time the revolution was over!

Good luck

Good ideas, good marketing, good vision and most of all truck loads of sheer good luck got the Apple crew out in front. Let it also be said good luck is only available to those people who put themselves in the right place at the right time. From memory I believe the brief history of PC's goes something like this :-

Doug Englebart :- gets it right the first time with his demo, back in the 60's of a PC featuring two networked computers offering a mouse, a video link, a full graphical operating system and colour monitor. Who invented the first PC? Doug did. Note well, it was some of Doug's crew on this project who went onto develop the STAR, the PC that haunts Xerox to this day.

Commodore Business Machines :- releases the PET. Very novel, very cheap and like a lot of home computers for a long time, completely under-estimated the home and business market. Certainly a good step forward though.

Apple :- sell a PC in bits over the counter. Good idea, no! Bloody genius idea! They get a huge name through their marketing, get some dollars from Mike and make the Apple ][.

Everyone else :- release good attempts that fall short of mediocracy at best.

IBM :- panic when they see the Apple ][ and then make Bill Gates into a billionaire. Nice one IBM.

Commodore Business Machines :- note the name, Business Machines, sell another toy, the VIC-20. Nice toy though. (My first PC at age 12, 1982). Commodore never did catch on to the fact that they needed to build one PC that did mostly everything for kids and adults alike.

Apple :- get a look at Doug Englebarts dream come true, the STAR, use his ideas and cement a place in the market place and history forever.

IBM :- who ???

Microsoft :- markets Windows and beats the crap out of every computer manufacturer and software writer in the world. Windows being the graphical overlay for PC-DOS and MS-DOS.

Commodore :- sell the 64 then he Amiga and then finally diappear. Mind you they are the last to fall, long after Spectrum, Apricot, Tandy, Texas Instruments, Microbee, and the list goes on.

Apple and Microsoft :- Woz quits and has a much better time of things in the garage. Jobs gets the sack and buys a small company called PIXAR. Makes Toy Story and gets rich again. Apple falls on its head without Jobs and begs him to come back. Jobs returns, Bill the Billionaire buys a huge chunk of Apple and thats what we've got, the Bill and Steve show.

Linux :- creeping up slowly ...

Bruce C.

Still an employee

I'd like to bring in to questions the last paragraph, where it states Woz permanently left Apple. AFAIK he still recieves a paycheque from Apple, at least as of 2001 (ref: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/06/22/woz/ ).

-66.88.6.151

It doesn't change the fact that he left Apple and doesn't work there anymore. The check he receives is probably more of a courtesy than a real check for any current work. From the article you cite:

He still receives a nominal paycheck from Apple and also gets the latest hardware. He says that he wants to be an Apple employee his whole life. However, he travels and speaks on his own nickel, and he can say anything he wants to about Apple.

I think the keyword there is "nominal." I'm sure it pales in comparisons to the million$ he has stashed away. If you like, you can mention that he still gets a paycheck from Apple.

Picture

Can we possibly get a picture of Steve Wozniak? I think it would add to the article significantly. Thanks. --Randy Johnston 12:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pictures, of course, enhance any article. The problem that Wikipedia faces is obtaining public domain or GFDL images. We can't just use any-old images we find on the Internet. But the Woz is a pretty approachable guy. If you can email him via his website, you can ask him for a GFDL or PD image. He might just give you one. Then you can add it to the article. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:38, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

POV

To 128.187.232.180 who placed the neutrality notice on the page: what's up? Please explain why you think the page is POV here. Until then, I'm removing the message. — Frecklefoot | Talk 08:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Though I didn't post the notice, I think that referring to Steve Wozniak as Woz throughout the article seems like unfair treatment. Probably a sentence explaining that he goes by Woz would be sufficient to keep it neutral. As is, it seems too familiar - as if it were written by a buddy of Woz or something.

Avoid hagiography, but Wozniak-article spirit needed in Steve-Jobs article

Mr. Wozniak comes across as a human being in this article, which is good. He seems an idealistic person, certainly one motivated by a vision which he has made practical. I'm aware that such people exist- many of them, in fact.

I've tried to encourage a larger human dimension in the Steve Jobs article. According to people like Theodore Roszak, that is warranted with Mr. Jobs (in light of his early idealism). However, in the Jobs article, there is little sense if any about a) what motivates him; b) what he may wish or have wished to give to the human race; c) how his childhood and adolescent experiences may have prepared him for his later work in invention, in the computer field, etc.; how he thinks about the impact of his work (other thanmaybe market share).

The human dimension is not present enough in that article, and I miss it. By the way, I know next to nothing about Steve Jobs, so I'm not really the person to add the missing elements to the article.

I post this opinion here because when I posted in the S. Jobs discussion, my comment got little response in terms of action or serious comment.

Best,

J.R.

Inconsistency in a decline for Apple

In this paragraph:

"He asked his wife if he had been involved in an accident of some kind. When she told him of the event, his short-term memory was restored. Wozniak also credits computer games for aiding him in restoring those "lost" memories.

Woz became burned out at Apple. He got married and returned..."

I am confused about the wife stuff. How could he have asked his wife something if he hasn't married her yet?

Mother?

6th grader needs answers- i am currently doing a 6th grade project and need to know who Steve Woniaks mother happens to be considering every site i have gone to hasnt named her thank you

Try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Also, try using punctuation. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Failure

I see the Failure magazine interview link was removed. Why? I didn't add the link in the first place, but I followed the link and found it to be a pretty good article. I wouldn't consider it spam, unless the interview was completely made up (which it doesn't appear to be). If no one objects, I'm going to add it back in. If you object, please state here why. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) ---

Error on the getting degrees?

I came across the Slashdot post about Steve Job/Stanford commencement story. Anyways one of the posts, brought the attention that Wozniak got his degrees in computer science and electrical engineering on 1987. The source? Well, it is the official Steve Wozniak website. [1] According to that page, 1987 BS EECS U.C. Berkeley. Right now, Wikipedia is saying 1983. --Chill Pill Bill 05:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be bold and change it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some web sites say 1987; some say 1986 (e.g. [2])

--- This bio says he graduated in 1987, then later it says he graduated in 1983. And the part about crashing, then talking to his wife, then getting married doesn't make any sense.

Wozniak responsible for Apple's success?

It seems that Jobs wasn't responbile for the genius hardware design of some of their first projects, however, it seems Jobs has been credited for most of Apple's success. Is it fair to say that the company wouldn't have been nearly as successful had Woz quit a year or so in?

- windwaker

Well, that would all be POV—there's no way to prove it one way or the other. But my opinion is that they were both responsible for it's success. Woz designed an approachable and worthwhile computer, and Jobs marketed the sucker. Woz would've been lost without Jobs (he might've had a computer, but no one to sell it to), and Jobs wouldn't have had anything to sell w/o Woz. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Corporate? In What World?

Wozniak and Jobs were proud to have originated an anti-corporate ethic among big players in the computer market.

What is this supposed to mean? Apple is certainly a highly corporate company, and Jobs isn't in any large way different in his approach to business than any others at his level in the technology field.

MSTCrow 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are "anti-corporate" in that they introduced the relaxed, casual atmosphere in a hi-tech company (Jobs often came to work in cut-offs and walked barefoot around the office, even after Apple was a huge company). That atmosphere was revolutionary in a hi-tech environment that was, at that time, dominated by white shirts and ties. It could be explained better in the article, though. — Frecklefoot | Talk 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a very silly statement. Mirror Vax 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wozniak, apparently

I took this out of the main article:

On the This Week In Tech podcast, episode 35, Wozniak proclaimed that the Wikipedia article on him contained misinformation.

Without some sort of specifics, I really don't see the point in including it in the main article - there's just no substance to this. And unless it were to blow into some sort of Siegenthaler-style tempest in a teapot it's a point of absolute trivia. Bryan 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him buying Donuts in Cupertino, CA last weekend

I thought I'd just share that...;-)--67.17.144.2 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]