In addition to this site, I have a site, The Macintosh Guy where I host a number of email discussion lists focused on various Mac themed topics.
One long time member of my lists is Steve Wozniak. Recently many of the Mac news sites made a big deal about an article that included what it now sounds like are misrepresentations of the truth. The following are comments directly from Steve in response to seeing the article.
From: Steve Wozniak
Subject: Re: [Ti] The Word according to The Woz [OT]
I was in New Zealand and am just now back home. I saw a couple of headlines that were way off base.
As for Microsoft's desire to be more like Apple (creative, not the Dark Empire), I have insights into that aspect. It's opinion but why be constantly negative, like saying that bad things from the past mean MS will always be a bad guy. I myself am not known for taking the enemy approach to anything.
As for "spinning off iPod" I heartily deny saying this. The reporter asked some such question and I laughed it off as ludicrous. Why would Apple spin off something so successful. Then the reporter suggested that it could be like a separate division. Well, organizationally, it must be so already and I acknowledged the question I was asked in that way. Then the reporter asked if it made sense to have the iPod division somewhere else and I gave a mixed response, a logical response. I likened it to HP divisions when I worked at HP. There is a nice environmental effect in separate divisions. But then I mentioned that the HP divisions were making very different product lines, whereas the strength of the iPod came from treating a music device as a 'satellite' to a computer, and the intertwining of iTunes and the iPod made this possible. I did NOT say that the iPod division should be spun off and I feel used in that regard.
As for Intel, I have consistently backed that decision. But virtually every issue ever is not black or white. In this case the only thing I've ever said slightly negative, myself, is that I'd hoped for a new low power silicon technology that would extend for future generations, a'la IBM's copper technology back a ways. I said that I had hoped for more than just a good design to keep as much of the chip inactive as possible. The reporter again pushed me to say I was negative on the transition. That's a laugh, as anyone who is close to me can tell you, but I did acknowledge that some might be against it because of our 'big enemy' stance and so much of our Macintosh history riding on being different than the masses. That statement must have been stretched into being one about my own thinking.
I'm extremely short of time, organizing things after a long trip (mostly email requests for my time) so if any of you can spread my comments around, all the better. The problem with thinking is that if you think out a 30 second explanation, it passes over the 5 second sound-byte crowd.
--
-- tv is wake zone
_______________________________________________Titanium mailing list
Here's a link to the message in the list archives.
