Financial Times names Steve Jobs Person of the Year

[Emil]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been named Person of the Year by The Financial Times. Love him or hate him, it's pretty much widely accepted that Jobs has managed to make Apple very successful in the last few years.

"When Steven Paul Jobs first hit the headlines, he was younger even than Mark Zuckerberg is now," according to The Financial Times. "Long before it was cool to be a nerd, his formative role in popularising the personal computer, and Apple's initial public offering on Wall Street – which came when Mr Jobs was still only 25 – made him the tech industry's first rock star. Now, three decades on, he has secured his place in the foremost ranks of the West Coast tech titans who have done so much to shape the world around the turn of the millennium. Long-time nemesis Bill Gates may be richer and, at his peak, arguably exerted greater sway, thanks to his monopoly over the world's PC software. But the Microsoft co-founder has left the stage to devote his life and fortune to good works. It is Mr Jobs who now holds the spotlight."

Last week, Time Magazine named Mark Zuckerberg Person of the Year. Which publication do you agree with, if either?

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/41723-financial-times-names-steve-jobs-person-of-the-year.html

 

[TomSEA]

I'd definitely pick Jobs (jerk that he is) over Zuckerberg. At least Jobs is innovative and aggressive in his pursuits.

Zuckerberg got lucky with a half-baked social app.

 

[princeton]

Assange. Nuff said. Neither Jobs nor ****erberg have had the impact that Julian Assange has. These publications just don't want to get into trouble with the government.

 

[red1776]

Financial Times names Steve Jobs Person of the Year


I would like to offer the suggestion that we have now seen it all.

 

[Burty117]

princeton said:
Assange. Nuff said. Neither Jobs nor ****erberg have had the impact that Julian Assange has. These publications just don't want to get into trouble with the government.

+1

I have to admit, it really is interesting to see what Assange uncovered.

 

[captaincranky]

Assange. Nuff said. Neither Jobs nor ****erberg have had the impact that Julian Assange has. These publications just don't want to get into trouble with the government.

Exactly what relevance does Julian Assange have to the financial world? He's basically some glorified crap a** gossip columnist, with a penchant for cyber crime.. The only publication that should name that clown "man of the year", is "The National Enquirer".

READ the title, "Financial Times names Steve Jobs man of the year".

Jobs operates a a higher profit margin than M$, Apple stock is worth more than that of M$, and he has legions of *****s poised to buy whatever new piece of gqrbage he tells them to. That makes him worthy of the title, "man of the year". He's just not going to sell his s*** to me.

Now, exactly what responsibility does, "Financial Times", have to further the adventures of Assand, whether they'd get in trouble for it or not. It's all about the bottom line, not hearsay and gossip. So, in the business community, Assand is irrelevant.

 

[Wendig0]

I'll concede that title to Jobs as soon as he retires the black turtleneck and blue jeans.... Nah, I don't even think that would convince me that he's worthy.

 

[captaincranky]

I'll concede that title to Jobs as soon as he retires the black turtleneck and blue jeans.... Nah, I don't even think that would convince me that he's worthy.

At the end of the day, Steve Jobs could walk out in his jock strap and still buy and sell you. And by any definition of standard, that makes him worthy of consideration, for this award, in that particular publication.

 

[Wendig0]

At the end of the day, Steve Jobs could walk out in his jock strap and still buy and sell you.

But where would he keep his wallet?:suspiciou

 

[captaincranky]

But where would he keep his wallet?:suspiciou

He has people for that...! In fact, it probably takes 2 or 3 of them just to pick it up. Then there's the guy who pulls his finger, and uses the result as a press release.

 

[Guest]

That picture. Steve Jobs was really Count Dooku?

 

[matrix86]

captaincranky said:
Exactly what relevance does Julian Assange have to the financial world? He's basically some glorified crap a** gossip columnist, with a penchant for cyber crime.. The only publication that should name that clown "man of the year", is "The National Enquirer".

READ the title, "Financial Times names Steve Jobs man of the year".

Thank you for actually using your brain, cap! People are too hooked on Assange and are too quick to just jump on Jobs. I don't like the guy either, but him being Financial Times man of the year makes sense. Assange probably doesn't even made a fraction of what Jobs does.

 

[Wendig0]

He has people for that...! In fact, it probably takes 2 or 3 of them just to pick it up. Then there's the guy who pulls his finger, and uses the result as a press release.

Oh I'm rollin' over here! LMAO! :haha:

 

[lawfer]

captaincranky said:
He has people for that...! In fact, it probably takes 2 or 3 of them just to pick it up. Then there's the guy who pulls his finger, and uses the result as a press release.

Lol. Genius.

 

[Prosercunus]

The only positive thing about Assange is that now maybe the "intelligence" community in the United States will wise up and not let lowly privates in the military get a hold of classified information, so that asshats like Assange (nothing more than a simple eurotrash gloryhound) will not be able to leak classified diplomatic cables.

The "freedom of speech/press" hounds think, "see the government is doing stuff behind our back!", and "well we need the government to be open"

A. The government of the United States is doing nothing new or different than the average country that conduct intelligence briefs have done, nothing in the cables are illegal or even contain anything someone who reads the news could of guessed or theorized themselves.

B. Anyone who thinks the United States can operate as a sovereign country by exposing every piece of information they receive on the military level is absolutely delusional.

On Topic: I really don't care for Apple products, however I gotta hand it to Steve Jobs from a financial standpoint. Anyone who can market technology that isn't even new as "revolutionary" and manages to get the average naive consumer to buy the products in mass gets my thumbs up.

 

[princeton]

captaincranky said:

Assange. Nuff said. Neither Jobs nor ****erberg have had the impact that Julian Assange has. These publications just don't want to get into trouble with the government.

Exactly what relevance does Julian Assange have to the financial world? He's basically some glorified crap a** gossip columnist, with a penchant for cyber crime.. The only publication that should name that clown "man of the year", is "The National Enquirer".

READ the title, "Financial Times names Steve Jobs man of the year".

Jobs operates a a higher profit margin than M$, Apple stock is worth more than that of M$, and he has legions of *****s poised to buy whatever new piece of gqrbage he tells them to. That makes him worthy of the title, "man of the year". He's just not going to sell his s*** to me.

Now, exactly what responsibility does, "Financial Times", have to further the adventures of Assand, whether they'd get in trouble for it or not. It's all about the bottom line, not hearsay and gossip. So, in the business community, Assand is irrelevant.

I'd take your opinion seriously. But you don't seem to even know Julians last name.

P.S. The article referenced TIME magazine and asked if we agreed with the choices the publications made. Therefore my comment was relevant. I was stating my opinion on the TIME magazine choice.

 

[captaincranky]

I'd take your opinion seriously. But you don't seem to even know Julians last name.

So I take it that you and, "Julian" are on a first name basis. I think your delusions are deepening

P.S. The article referenced TIME magazine and asked if we agreed with the choices the publications made. Therefore my comment was relevant. I was stating my opinion on the TIME magazine choice.

OK, what's his name is just as irrelevant in the "TIME" magazine circle of influence as he is in the "Financial Times.

Wow, his last big leak obviated the fact that diplomats talked about each other behind their backs. Now there's a f***ing big surprise! I would have never thought that was true. Just because people I know talk behind my back, and people you know talk behind your back, in the same way we both talk behind their backs. And everybody everywhere talk behind each others back, who would ever have come up with the idea that diplomats talk behind each others backs.

If this is a big revelation to you, then you have some serious developmental issues.

Which in fairness, are just an undesirable side effect of living in a society capable of making a woman as stupid, ugly, fat, and bossy as "Snookie, a "reality star".

Run along now, I don't want you to waste another valuble moment on this discussion, when you could be watching either "TMZ" or "Access Hollywood", to keep in touch with what's "really important".

Don't mind me, I'm just pissed because Kim Kardashian wasn't named Time Magazine's", "Woman of the Year". I don't know if they were afraid of angering the US Government, or couldn't justify the cost of the 3 page foldout cover they'd need to get her a** on it.

Oh, and when you see "Julian", tell him I said he's an a**hole, let's see if he leaks that.

 

[lawfer]

I wonder who would have had this year's Man Of The Year, if Bill Gate was still the head of Microsoft.

 

[captaincranky]

I wonder who would have had this year's Man Of The Year, if Bill Gate was still the head of Microsoft.

It's unlikely that it would have been Bill Gates. This because he, his wife Melinda, and Bono were Time's, "Man of the Year" in 2005.

Oddly, (or perhaps not), George W. Bush was their man of the year in both 2000 and 2004. Time is a notoriously right wing leaning publication, and that might explain some of it.

You don't always have to be popular, or even have what people consider a positive influence to claim the title either. You can even be reviled in most parts of the Western World and still get the nod. Witness Time's choice of 1979, The Ayatollah Khomeini. Actually, this choice makes a great deal of sense, given Time's Republican affiliation, and the fact that Jimmy Carter, one of the most ineffective Democratic presidents of all time was in office. The choice of the Ayatollah, was Time Magazine rubbing Carter's nose in his own incompetence.

Here's the complete list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year which should be enough to keep you amused, (or perhaps bemused), for quite a while.

I'm still sticking with my original assessment of Julian "What's hiz name", and for the record, I think he barely qualifies for "skid-mark du jour ".

 

[dividebyzero]

Don't mind me, I'm just pissed because Kim Kardashian wasn't named Time Magazine's", "Woman of the Year". I don't know if they were afraid of angering the US Government, or couldn't justify the cost of the 3 page foldout cover they'd need to get her a** on it.

Just need a telephoto lens to capture the entire vista

 

[Benny26]

Captaincranky said:
Oddly, (or perhaps not), George W. Bush was their man of the year in both 2000 and 2004. Time is a notoriously right wing leaning publication, and that might explain some of it.

George W. Bush was comedy gold. I dun alf miss his gaffs on the morning news, plus that shoe dodging he did was just pure genius.

Granted, i agree with the "How the bloody hell did this man make president?" question, and he did make some stupid mistakes in his time as president, (Iraq war for most people). I consider the world lucky he didn't do a "What does this button do?" and then blown us all into the dark ages gaff

Anyways what was the topic..........."Jobs FT man of the year". Weeellll, i couldn't really care too be honest...I'm more interested in who got the "Worst man of the year". I'm thinking a man called Tony Hayward wouldn't be too far off the top of that list for most American's and "Certain high investors". :haha:

 

[lawfer]

dividebyzero said:

Don't mind me, I'm just pissed because Kim Kardashian wasn't named Time Magazine's", "Woman of the Year". I don't know if they were afraid of angering the US Government, or couldn't justify the cost of the 3 page foldout cover they'd need to get her a** on it.

Just need a telephoto lens to capture the entire vista

Hahaha. Though it would certainly defy the laws of physics, I was hoping for a 2-page foldout cover --each page with each *** cheek-- that when opened, it would show me the grand prize. But that is completely off-topic! Where were we again? Something with Julian's last name...?

 

[captaincranky]

Hahaha. Though it would certainly defy the laws of physics, I was hoping for a 2-page foldout cover --each page with each *** cheek-- that when opened, it would show me the grand prize. But that is completely off-topic! Where were we again? Something with Julian's last name...?

First off, DBZ would be using the tele out of his back door in New Zealand.

Second, if Time did the Kardashian cover as you suggest, then the "grand prize" would have to be accompanied by a "scratch n' sniff" patch, directly on the "fold line of your affections", so to speak. Erstwhile, I sit at home pondering if the Grand Canyon, will ever make the grade as Time's "Woman of the Year".

Moving along, "Kim who", "Julian who", "Snookie who", and last but mostly least, "The Situation who"? And one last question, did Dennis Rodman ever buy another wedding dress after Carmen Electra divorced him?

 

[Guest]

JerkyTimes announced today that Steve Jobs is the biggest jerky of the century! Good job!

 

[princeton]

captaincranky said:

I'd take your opinion seriously. But you don't seem to even know Julians last name.

So I take it that you and, "Julian" are on a first name basis. I think your delusions are deepening

P.S. The article referenced TIME magazine and asked if we agreed with the choices the publications made. Therefore my comment was relevant. I was stating my opinion on the TIME magazine choice.

OK, what's his name is just as irrelevant in the "TIME" magazine circle of influence as he is in the "Financial Times.

Wow, his last big leak obviated the fact that diplomats talked about each other behind their backs. Now there's a f***ing big surprise! I would have never thought that was true. Just because people I know talk behind my back, and people you know talk behind your back, in the same way we both talk behind their backs. And everybody everywhere talk behind each others back, who would ever have come up with the idea that diplomats talk behind each others backs.

If this is a big revelation to you, then you have some serious developmental issues.

Which in fairness, are just an undesirable side effect of living in a society capable of making a woman as stupid, ugly, fat, and bossy as "Snookie, a "reality star".

Run along now, I don't want you to waste another valuble moment on this discussion, when you could be watching either "TMZ" or "Access Hollywood", to keep in touch with what's "really important".

Don't mind me, I'm just pissed because Kim Kardashian wasn't named Time Magazine's", "Woman of the Year". I don't know if they were afraid of angering the US Government, or couldn't justify the cost of the 3 page foldout cover they'd need to get her a** on it.

Oh, and when you see "Julian", tell him I said he's an a**hole, let's see if he leaks that.

**** you have issues. I'm dead serious, you should seek some sort of anger management or counseling. Now act civil before I call the idiocy management services for inappropriate conduct towards other members. I don't see why you stay here if things anger you so easily. It's like a child who has doesn't get his way.