Ashton Kutcher's Steve Jobs biopic bombs in both reviews and box office

While there are lots of fans of Apple's products who routinely stand or sit in lines outside of stores waiting to get the next iPhone or iPad, there were no such lines in front of US movie theaters this weekend to watch the heavily hyped biopic of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. The movie, titled simply Jobs, is estimated to have grossed just $6.7 million from 2,381 screens, placing it in a dismal seventh place on the box office charts.

The Hollywood Reporter states that the movie, which stars Ashton Kutcher in the title role, received just a "B-" score from Cinemascore, which polls select audiences as they come out of movie showings on Friday. In addition, the Rotten Tomatoes site, which averages the review scores of the major and minor movie critics, says that Jobs got a score of just 25 percent.

Even Apple's other co-founder Steve Wozniak wasn't all that thrilled about the movie. In a statement to Gizmodo, he said that while he was "entertained" and that "the acting throughout was good," it was not enough to recommend Jobs to others. He also seemed to blame Kutcher's "own image of Jobs" with what he felt was wrong with the movie.

The film was independently financed by Five Star Films for a mere $15 million, which makes its poor box office showing even worse considering it didn't need to gross a ton of money to become profitable. Kutcher filmed the movie in mid-2012 during a break from his work on the sitcom Two and a Half Men. In the past couple of weeks, Kutcher has been hitting the promotional circuit hard to hype up Jobs, appearing on TV talk shows and even ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.

Source: Hollywood Reporter | Image via Glen Wilson

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Canada to get two new full Microsoft Stores in Edmonton and Burnaby

Next Story

Prankster puts "Useless PlasticBox 1.2" in several LA Best Buy stores

104 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why did anyone think that making a movie about world's biggest tech hypocrite, was going to somehow be great?

I mean, "Pirates of Silicon Valley" was awesome because even though it highlighted Apple more than Microsoft, the ending was the best part in which the winner was simply the nerdy smart guy, and the sly drug-head "his own child" hating hypocrite is a bitter old man.

When a Gates film is done which I hope will be Anthony Michael Hall who played Gates in Pirates, it will be liked by all.

I think Kutcher's physical impersonalization of Jobs it's really good (judging from the photos), but Wozniak said that Kutcher's "own image of Jobs" is what he didn't like. I'm not sure what he meant.

Even though, I want to see the movie, so I can have my own opinion.

mjedi7 said,
... Kutcher's "own image of Jobs" is what he didn't like. ....

Kutcher sees Jobs with fanboy goggles on, and portrayed him through those very rose coloured glasses.
The role calls for someone who can portray the role a little more honestly and from a personal place, not a fanboy dancing around look at me, I'm Jobs.

Should have been a direct to video release. For me, I find it an interesting subject, but certainly don't trust Hollywood to tell the true story and definitely not paying to see it. Also I find Kutcher annoying, a pretty boy that's had it easy from day one, no hardship, no dues paid, just fortunate, more in line with a Gates story minus the pretty boy (research his getting more than one helping hand yourself) than Jobs. I hope this continues to fail as it will signal the end of cashing in on Jobs story.

When i first heard about this movie I had to check the date to make sure it was not April 1st. What a bad idea this was, no shock though really this is apple.

Sadly, i would watch this. But i wouldn't pay to see it in the movies.
This should have been like a direct to DVD release or similar.

warwagon said,
Steve Jobs, while an amazing business man and visionary was also a total douchebag!

All the more reason to use Kutcher for the role!

Every time I see Kutcher, I think of Kelso. Even Wozniak say there were a lot of things wrong with the movie. Just Hollywood trying to capitalize on someone's death. Nothing new.

kinda starting to think the love obsession with Apple is starting to fade, I mean Apple WAS Jobs... you don't hear the hype and talk now days that you heard when he was around hyping the products.. the energy just isn't there now days

Well according to imdb, it's not even due for a release in the UK, however it is in Singapore, Turkey, France, Argentina, India, Poland, Belgium, Denmark etc...... WTF?

I usually have three categories for movies:

1. Movies worth going in to see
2. Movies worth waiting for rental
3. Movies I may see once it hits Netflix

This movie fall into category number 3.

j2006 said,
To me this movie falls into category number 4, skip! lol
I will add that option into my future movie critiques.

JHBrown said,
I usually have three categories for movies:

1. Movies worth going in to see
2. Movies worth waiting for rental
3. Movies I may see once it hits Netflix

This movie fall into category number 3.

I wouldn't even watch it free on Netflix. So for me it fails all 3.

CygnusOrion said,
Pirates of Silicon Valley already covered this topic 15 years ago....

exactly. and it was a lot more even handed to Microsoft and bill gates.

I watched the movie and recommended it to everyone I know, the movie is great.

The movie cost 8.5 million to produce and already made 6 million in 3 days, and by the end of next week perhaps 20 million, double the investment

In this movie Jobs does not come from the sky, he is not killed and restricted in 3 days, and he is not a personal friend of optimum prim, or superman, or Spiderman.

I always wanted to know how these companies started, what made Apple different, and why Microsoft succeeded where Apple did not, and why Apple succeeded in placed others like Microsoft still struggle, I wanted to know so much, and the movie answered many questions.

The writer of this article is happy that Steve Jobs movie is not a super hit, why? Like the writer did invent the teleporter and a super-efficient energy source that combined helped humanity way more than Jobs, yeh right

There are a few people like me who are looking at the success of others and learn from it hoping that one day they will replicate it or a tiny bit of it, and there are all these other sheep who just say maaaaaaa, baaaaaa , and are not happy that some succeeded

john.smith_2084 said,
I watched the movie and recommended it to everyone I know, the movie is great.

The movie cost 8.5 million to produce and already made 6 million in 3 days, and by the end of next week perhaps 20 million, double the investment

In this movie Jobs does not come from the sky, he is not killed and restricted in 3 days, and he is not a personal friend of optimum prim, or superman, or Spiderman.

I always wanted to know how these companies started, what made Apple different, and why Microsoft succeeded where Apple did not, and why Apple succeeded in placed others like Microsoft still struggle, I wanted to know so much, and the movie answered many questions.

The writer of this article is happy that Steve Jobs movie is not a super hit, why? Like the writer did invent the teleporter and a super-efficient energy source that combined helped humanity way more than Jobs, yeh right

There are a few people like me who are looking at the success of others and learn from it hoping that one day they will replicate it or a tiny bit of it, and there are all these other sheep who just say maaaaaaa, baaaaaa , and are not happy that some succeeded

First you need to work on your spelling.

Then you need to realise that you don't just automatically become more successful by trying to be like an already successful person.

BTW, 20mil by next week isn't 'double the investment,' there are many costs that need to come out of that 20mil...

headsoup said,

First you need to work on your spelling.

Then you need to realise that you don't just automatically become more successful by trying to be like an already successful person.
.

to like???? to learn from! not to like!

If you want to watch a better movie about Apple (and Microsoft), watch Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Edit: Fairly certain you're trolling now.

nub said,
If you want to watch a better movie about Apple (and Microsoft), watch Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Edit: Fairly certain you're trolling now.

Pirates of Silicon Valley? Seriously? About what? How a group of gay actors are trying to act evil to show Microsoft and Apple? Wow, good job.

john.smith_2084 said,

How a group of gay actors are trying to act evil to show Microsoft and Apple?

You do know, that Noah Wyle was even invited by Jobs himself to open a Macworld Keynote, pretending he was Jobs, right?

john.smith_2084 said,
I watched the movie and recommended it to everyone I know, the movie is great.

The movie cost 8.5 million to produce and already made 6 million in 3 days, and by the end of next week perhaps 20 million, double the investment

In this movie Jobs does not come from the sky, he is not killed and restricted in 3 days, and he is not a personal friend of optimum prim, or superman, or Spiderman.

I always wanted to know how these companies started, what made Apple different, and why Microsoft succeeded where Apple did not, and why Apple succeeded in placed others like Microsoft still struggle, I wanted to know so much, and the movie answered many questions.

The writer of this article is happy that Steve Jobs movie is not a super hit, why? Like the writer did invent the teleporter and a super-efficient energy source that combined helped humanity way more than Jobs, yeh right

There are a few people like me who are looking at the success of others and learn from it hoping that one day they will replicate it or a tiny bit of it, and there are all these other sheep who just say maaaaaaa, baaaaaa , and are not happy that some succeeded

If you just watch Pirates of Silicon Valley you would have gained much insight.
This new movie more dealt with Jobs himself which IMO (having NOT seen the movie), wouldn't tell you why Apple fail in the beginning and had success later. Pirates however does go into more depth about how both Jobs and Gates started their companies, where they worked together and then broke up and then worked together again.

Having grew up during the .com boom having been born in 69 and knowing what I do know about jobs as I have been a tech nerd since I was 7 years old, Jobs is a douchebag drug using family abandoning slave driving thief. He is arrogant and his biggest failure is he isn't a listener. He did things his way which cost Apple a lot of money. One of the mains reasons he left is he acted like a spoiled brat not wanting to to run Apple any other way than how he wanted. The Mac was selling yet he was under the illusion it was. That is why Scully went into selling Mac OS as a license to other OEMs, which ran Apple almost totally out of business. That is why when Jobs return he bought back all the licensing deals. Without having their own OS with their hardware, Apple wont have a business because anyone with OS X or iOS would easily run Apple out of business with pricing. That is why Windows killed Mac OS. Same functionality, much less cost to get into and maintain.

For the cost to maintain an X-serve Server Farm, I could have several Linux/Windows farms and be able to do a bunch more business with them than I ever could with any Apple product. I know because I tried.

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Aug 19 2013, 7:57pm :

Judging from the still at the top of the article it looks like he should have been cast as Woz, not Jobs. I have no interest in the subject matter, though.

MikeInBA said,
Color me shocked. Just because you marry a good actress, doesn't mean you get half her talent in the divorce
Demi Moore a good actress? HAH!...that's a good chuckle. Thanks, I needed that. I am sure she was good at something, but acting wouldn't be one of them.

Kutcher is good as a funnyman. Like the TV series he was on with Mila Kunas. He good at being funny. Jobs was't even funny. The person who should have played Jobs should have been Noah Wiley.

I think there were a couple things:

a) The "Steve Jobs" biography by Walter Isaacson was a bestseller and praised for being very in-depth. We knew for quite some time this Hollywood movie was not nearly as thorough and doesn't even cover the Apple events after 2001, IIRC, which are arguably some of the most significant in the history of the company.

b) Steve Jobs has now been dead for nearly two years. While his passing was sad, any attempt to "cash in" on his legacy faded quite quickly. Had this movie been rushed to theaters early in 2012, it might have done better due to hype.

After 2001 are the most significant of the company? You are aware that Apple basically kick started personal computing single-handedly? The only other (major) company doing PC stuff was IBM, and IBM was p*ss-poor at consumer audience. (hence why they sold their sh*t to Lenovo)

Shadowzz said,
You are aware that Apple basically kick started personal computing single-handedly?

You spelled Commodore wrong.

Shadowzz said,
The only other (major) company doing PC stuff was IBM, and IBM was p*ss-poor at consumer audience. (hence why they sold their sh*t to Lenovo)

IBM kicked Apple out of all corporations 'cause: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." - FACT!

IBM just quit PCs after they lost control of the market due to the open architecture of the first PC - which lead to the rise of clones (and made Microsoft a global player due to DOS licensing).
IBM even tried to regain control with the PS/II and failed miserably. Only after they refocused on to be a service oriented company they sold their remaining PC division to Lenovo… (similarly as IBM has left the printer market by selling Lexmark)

Shadowzz said,
After 2001 are the most significant of the company? You are aware that Apple basically kick started personal computing single-handedly? The only other (major) company doing PC stuff was IBM, and IBM was p*ss-poor at consumer audience. (hence why they sold their sh*t to Lenovo)
Its not that they were **** poor, in tailoring to consumers, its that the ThinkPad was a business computer and it was very expensive. IBM was an enterprise solution and with MS coming with an OS like DOS for the basic stuff and then Windows, the PC simply took off. I paid $4000 for a ThinkPad 760, which was way to expensive compared to the laptops you can get today. But then it was considered top of the line with its 600Mhz CPU.

Apple's biggest success started in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone.

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Aug 19 2013, 6:22pm :

I'd certainly say they were. I don't think anyone would deny the impact the iPod, iPad, iPhone, etc. had on the industry. I didn't say Apple wasn't significant before 2001, they certainly were, but I don't think they truly became the cultural icon they are today until after the iPod. It was the product that "saved" Apple, in my opinion.

Are you really that surprised?
Most kids and teenagers today have no clue who Steve Jobs is nor cares.
I know i won't bother paying to see some crap bio on someone i have no interest in.

Everyone around me knows who it is, from 16 year olds till my grand parents, and none of them are really occupied with the technological world like many of us (and me) are.
And several of them know more about Jobs then most here, as most seem to know him from the iPhone and iPod, while he has done so much more for all of us.

And I'm pretty sure everyone got the Apple reference back when Forrest Gump was made and released.

Dermot said,
Most kids and teenagers today have no clue who Steve Jobs is nor cares..

I agree, not many people knows him in Yemen and Zimbabwe, but that is normal, since they know nothing there anyway

forest gump was made in 1994 making a person approx 24+ years of age to remember that, which refers back to what i said.

@john smith, they probably do know him in yemen/zimbabwe, isn't that were he paid 5 year olds 5 dollars a month to make ipod nanos?

I thought this movie was going to be like The Wizard, just with Apple products instead of Nintendo. It probably would have done better if that was the case.

timster said,
didn't Steve Wozniak pretty much discredit most of the movie?

The article did say this:

Even Apple's other co-founder Steve Wozniak wasn't all that thrilled about the movie. In a statement to Gizmodo, he said that while he was "entertained" and that "the acting throughout was good," it was not enough to recommend Jobs to others. He also seemed to blame Kutcher's "own image of Jobs" with what he felt was wrong with the movie.

timster said,
didn't Steve Wozniak pretty much discredit most of the movie?

Woze who? just because he created a converter to connect the pc to the tv does not make him important at all, I think the movie made from woze a big deal, and he was not

john.smith_2084 said,

Woze who? just because he created a converter to connect the pc to the tv does not make him important at all, I think the movie made from woze a big deal, and he was not

Not sure if troll and/or idiot. Can't even spell the name right. Woz created the entire hardware and circuit design as well as the operating system for the Apple I single-handedly. Jobs was not an engineer. Without Woz, Apple never would existed.

john.smith_2084 said,

Woze who? just because he created a converter to connect the pc to the tv does not make him important at all, I think the movie made from woze a big deal, and he was not

/facepalm

Yes Woz did, but I read that Woz is a consultant for another "Steve Jobs" movie. Woz is being paid not to like this one, in a sense.

NeoPogo said,
Yes Woz did, but I read that Woz is a consultant for another "Steve Jobs" movie. Woz is being paid not to like this one, in a sense.

No he's not. Woz is merely giving the other movies producer information before the script is even written, whereas this movie they wanted input after the script was already made.

john.smith_2084 said,

Woze who? just because he created a converter to connect the pc to the tv does not make him important at all, I think the movie made from woze a big deal, and he was not

Woz made the Apple Computer that Steve turned into a company to make money. The Apple II arguably was the first desktop PC sold on retail IMO. Without Woz, there would have been no Apple.

nub said,

Not sure if troll and/or idiot. Can't even spell the name right. Woz created the entire hardware and circuit design as well as the operating system for the Apple I single-handedly. Jobs was not an engineer. Without Woz, Apple never would existed.

operating system for the Apple I single-handedly, yeh right

I had the Apple 2, it had BASIC (a very simple one) and most programs booted without OS, to load a program you had to restart it.

The OS was introduced later, and they got it from Shepardson, and the developer acording to wikepedia was not wizi wiz yeh, that is the correct spelling!

NeoPogo said,
....

The Woz was asked to endorse this script and he said no.

Sorkin will make a better Jobs pic. He has a flair for the type of drama that will really make Steve's story shine.

john.smith_2084 said,

operating system for the Apple I single-handedly, yeh right

I had the Apple 2, it had BASIC (a very simple one) and most programs booted without OS, to load a program you had to restart it.

The OS was introduced later, and they got it from Shepardson, and the developer acording to wikepedia was not wizi wiz yeh, that is the correct spelling!

Gates alluded to making basic for one of Apple's computers...not sue which one. Any idea?

DPyro said,

No he's not. Woz is merely giving the other movies producer information before the script is even written, whereas this movie they wanted input after the script was already made.

Oh really?

from : http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobile...t-of-things-wrong-50012018/

"Woz is, however, consulting on the other Steve Jobs film in production, the one penned by The Social Network writer Aaron Sorkin. "

And the truth shows I am right and you are not!

NeoPogo said,

And the truth shows I am right and you are not!

I meant he's not getting paid not to like the other movie, just because he's giving the other film advice before the script is even written. Jobs movie is simply just crap, and the reviews reflect that.

DPyro said,

I meant he's not getting paid not to like the other movie, just because he's giving the other film advice before the script is even written. Jobs movie is simply just crap, and the reviews reflect that.

Sorry. I did not understand your point and thought your point was something else. Thank you for clarifying so I understand.

What's that!? A movie failed to recoup it's entire production and distribution cost ON IT'S FIRST WEEKEND??!! How will civilisation survive? Seriously, I'm far from being an Apple fan but how about even-handed writing?

As expected, I mean what bio-epic is a hit? Short of historical ones like the last emperor. Must say I went to see the Zuckerburg one and that was bad enough.

Well is it really surprising? Biopics and drama hardly make for exciting movies, maybe the gross gained should be compared with other biopics/dramas rather than The Hobbit or The Avengers. Then it'd probably look the norm.

Shadowzz said,
Yeah he's really selfish giving the world personal computing! BOO JOBS!

You mean he gave consumers a product to make him money?

Hmm...

wingliston said,
I wouldn't waste my money on a movie about a selfish guy.

Totally agree. While he was quite the character, he was a very selfish and arrogant. Bill and Microsoft continuously dedicate a lot of time and resources in citizenship and giving money and (useful) technology to those in need. Steve and Apple haven't really given anything other than to the entertainment industry which already makes millions of dollars, and I remember they gave iPhones away to those sinkhole survivors but that's the least of what they needed lol. Don't even get me started on how he treated his own customers and fanbois.

j2006 said,

Totally agree. While he was quite the character, he was a very selfish and arrogant. Bill and Microsoft continuously dedicate a lot of time and resources in citizenship and giving money and (useful) technology to those in need. Steve and Apple haven't really given anything other than to the entertainment industry which already makes millions of dollars, and I remember they gave iPhones away to those sinkhole survivors but that's the least of what they needed lol. Don't even get me started on how he treated his own customers and fanbois.

yeh right, Saint Gates and Evil Jobs

Shadowzz said,
Yeah he's really selfish giving the world personal computing! BOO JOBS!

Personal computing existed before Apple...

headsoup said,

You mean he gave consumers a product to make him money?

Hmm...

No, he meant without Apple all we would have today yet is mainframes and minicomputers (AS/400).

NeoPogo said,

No, he meant without Apple all we would have today yet is mainframes and minicomputers (AS/400).


Which is ludacris as Apple weren't the only ones building PCs…

MFH said,

Which is ludacris as Apple weren't the only ones building PCs…

Altair, Sinclair, and Heathkit was not a personal computer either in the 1970s they were kits you assembled yourself. Radio Shack entered in 1977 with the TRS-80.

Commodore entered the PC market with the Commodore PET system in 1977 and the Vic-20 in 1980. Atari entered the market with the Atari 400/800 in 1979.

Apple I was out in 1976 (thanks to Byte Shop of adding a case, monitor, and keyboard to their package) and the Apple II in 1977.

headsoup said,

You mean he gave consumers a product to make him money?

Hmm...


So what? He still gave us the Personal Computer, a GUI and such.
All other parties never focused on the personal approach, but business systems.
And for that alone Jobs and Wozniak deserve plenty of credit.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I still want to watch it, even though the reviews aren't good. I think I will just wait to until it comes out onto Netflix.

I watched a biography of Steve Jobs on Netflix. It was horrible. People always want to make him out as some kind of genius and a saint.

nub said,
People always want to make him out as some kind of genius and a saint.

I think of Steve Jobs as a modern day magician/illusionist.

Steve Jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb6KhHQcoKI

Everyone else:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eIptKy_dWg

Same technology that was invented by someone else, but repackaged, rebranded and resold as something revolutionary.

What sets Steve Jobs apart from other keynote presenters is his performance, patter, his figure-of-authority aura, and superbly-managed audience expectation.

In a nutshell, I don't think of him as the innovative genius some fanboys are making him out to be. But I do give him credit for being an amazing salesman and presenter.

letmesee said,

Same technology that was invented by someone else, but repackaged, rebranded and resold as something revolutionary.

If you read Forbes, Nikola Tesla did the same exact thing with many "inventions". Now people are trying to make Tesla out to be some genius. Jobs = Tesla. Both are the same so if you back Tesla you back Jobs. Simple. Fact!

NeoPogo said,

If you read Forbes, Nikola Tesla did the same exact thing with many "inventions". Now people are trying to make Tesla out to be some genius. Jobs = Tesla. Both are the same so if you back Tesla you back Jobs. Simple. Fact!

Nikola Tesla actually invented stuff. Jobs invented nothing. Jobs doesn't equal Tesla in the least bit. Tesla has over 300 patents where he actually invented something. What did Jobs invent.

Jobs with his sly speech and cunning is good as a salesmen...that's it!

NeoPogo said,

If you read Forbes, Nikola Tesla did the same exact thing with many "inventions". Now people are trying to make Tesla out to be some genius. Jobs = Tesla. Both are the same so if you back Tesla you back Jobs. Simple. Fact!

tesla created a lot of original stuff and died poor and alone. NOT at all like JOBS

also, this if you are interested is a good feedback on that forbes article.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_response

im sorry but no one really cares... dont mean to be harsh but the majority of people may have heard of him as from the apple products they own but arent that interested about hearing about his life or the rise of apple... backed by microsoft!! im sorry but they just arent. If it had a massive love story or jobs going to war with smartphones by blowing stuff up or receiving the ideas of the ipod via conquering an alien intelligence, itd be grossing £100's million of dollars... FACT!!!

psionicinversion said,
im sorry but no one really cares... dont mean to be harsh but the majority of people may have heard of him as from the apple products they own but arent that interested about hearing about his life or the rise of apple... backed by microsoft!! im sorry but they just arent. If it had a massive love story or jobs going to war with smartphones by blowing stuff up or receiving the ideas of the ipod via conquering an alien intelligence, itd be grossing £100's million of dollars... FACT!!!

This exactly. I don't think there's so much people actually interested in a Jobs' biopic, not even among the Apple fans.

And then it even gets poor reviews.

Firstly they are not Backed by Microsoft while Microsoft makes productes for them software mainly MS Office that is it and while they own some shares in the comoaning they never backed Apple in the start cause both companies were unknown at the time they had both just started out and Bill gates did create programs then for the Mac but soon after that stopped it was not until 1997 when Jobs and B decided to do a deal and get MS software on the Mac again


As for the Film i watched it and it was good but not as good as Pirates of silicon valley but still good

notuptome2004 said,
it was not until 1997 when Jobs and B decided to do a deal and get MS software on the Mac again

Influx of $150 million in cash for non-voting stocks AND the promise to bring an insanely lucrative and well position software franchise back to the platform is what kept Apple afloat. Without that deal Apple was DOA.

AmazingRando said,

Influx of $150 million in cash for non-voting stocks AND the promise to bring an insanely lucrative and well position software franchise back to the platform is what kept Apple afloat. Without that deal Apple was DOA.

The $150 million and the office guarantee were part of a patent/copyright lawsuit from Apple against Microsoft. Microsoft stole code from QuickTime and rather than taking it to courts, Jobs had a brilliant PR move on how to deal with the lawsuit. If MS had gone to court, MS would have lost based on the evidence Apple had.

Rosyna said,

The $150 million and the office guarantee were part of a patent/copyright lawsuit from Apple against Microsoft. Microsoft stole code from QuickTime and rather than taking it to courts, Jobs had a brilliant PR move on how to deal with the lawsuit. If MS had gone to court, MS would have lost based on the evidence Apple had.

You can watch how brilliant of a PR move it was from the audience's reaction to Bill showing up on the big screen.

As far as a business decision goes, Apple did not have deep enough pockets or support at that time to drag out litigation and have it result in such a large enough win that it would've helped them.

Without the money, Apple would've lost access to Office and they would've still had to contend with the "clone" market and that would've finished them off for good. It was mutually beneficial to both companies, but Apple survived because of it.

notuptome2004 said,
Firstly they are not Backed by Microsoft while Microsoft makes productes for them software mainly MS Office that is it and while they own some shares in the comoaning they never backed Apple in the start cause both companies were unknown at the time they had both just started out and Bill gates did create programs then for the Mac but soon after that stopped it was not until 1997 when Jobs and B decided to do a deal and get MS software on the Mac again


As for the Film i watched it and it was good but not as good as Pirates of silicon valley but still good

What? I wold say making apps for a lame platform is certainly backing it up. MS made the DOS that the Apple II's used. Yes they made Mac Office, today's version of Office for OS X, but they also make Exchange Sync for the Mac and Outlook is coming/here for the Mac.

In 1997. if Apple; who was already losing devs left and right had lost the biggets software dev on the planet, this would have signaled th world that APple is indeed a dying platform and that it is time to move on.

Its not about the deal that saved Apple. What save Apple is Jobs finally conceded to the FACT that he lost to Gates who was right from the beginning, and if he had listening from the beginning, Apple would have been the company Microsoft is today which would have been making the worlds top computers with the worlds best OS and Office Suite and more.

I have no interest in the movie because Jobs was a douche who, abandon his family early on and dismissed Lisa was his child even though he name a broken ugly non-selling computer in her name. He didn't want to give employee stock in the company. He had employees working the kind of hours that today you all complain about with China who make 80% of the US' products. He is/was a hypocrite. He was also the biggest tech liar in history.

All the Apple fans I thought loved Jobs and had to see or own everything Apple makes, didn't run out and see this movie? I am so surprised. I mean they all will stand in line trying to be first, hoping to sell their spot for $1000, but they wont even spend $11 to go see their god of the iWorld? Wow! I am so surprised!

in 1997 Apple was making most software in-house and no they was not losing many outside Devs because the oens they are were loyal to the platform

Now Jobs did not concede that Bill was right because Bill was never right on anything back in the 80s because it was not until after Jobs was Pushed away from his own company that Windows 1.0 was released yes Jobs and them seen a Prototype version of it at one point in 1984 but that is. Microsoft still made Apps for the Apple for a short time Bill gates was not a Huge part of Apple they MS did not work @ Apple headquarters they worked in Seattle and made Software from there.


As for Family Jobs yes did have bad ties with Lisa and her mother but after his Push out of Apple and during his time and work Next the relationship with his daughter grew big time . things for him changed after the push out of his company . then in 1996 he came back to Apple because they needed him Apple while not doing great was not gonna just Die off the next day and close doors no but Jobs is the reason they are successful today.


let just face it weather ya hate Jobs or Apple at all the device he envisioned and that they made have changed the world in such small and big Ways. iMac was the first All-in-one that People got they understood it the iPod may not have been the first MP3 player on the Market but it was the first to redefine what a music player was and People understood it while other players on the Market Failed and went away at the time same with the iPhone it changed the Phone market in so many ways withoiut the iPhone we may not have the look and feel of devices and software we have today on phone or well not in the same way

notuptome2004 said,
in 1997 Apple was making most software in-house and no they was not losing many outside Devs because the oens they are were loyal to the platform

Now Jobs did not concede that Bill was right because Bill was never right on anything back in the 80s because it was not until after Jobs was Pushed away from his own company that Windows 1.0 was released yes Jobs and them seen a Prototype version of it at one point in 1984 but that is. Microsoft still made Apps for the Apple for a short time Bill gates was not a Huge part of Apple they MS did not work @ Apple headquarters they worked in Seattle and made Software from there.


As for Family Jobs yes did have bad ties with Lisa and her mother but after his Push out of Apple and during his time and work Next the relationship with his daughter grew big time . things for him changed after the push out of his company . then in 1996 he came back to Apple because they needed him Apple while not doing great was not gonna just Die off the next day and close doors no but Jobs is the reason they are successful today.


let just face it weather ya hate Jobs or Apple at all the device he envisioned and that they made have changed the world in such small and big Ways. iMac was the first All-in-one that People got they understood it the iPod may not have been the first MP3 player on the Market but it was the first to redefine what a music player was and People understood it while other players on the Market Failed and went away at the time same with the iPhone it changed the Phone market in so many ways withoiut the iPhone we may not have the look and feel of devices and software we have today on phone or well not in the same way

Well I would suggest you do a bit more looking. Several devs had stopped making applications for Mac OS because the OS simply wasn't selling in sufficient numbers. This is how Microsoft was able to use leverage with Office. If the worlds biggest software dev would have left Apple, every other dev would have too. I mean look at the facts. In 1997 Windows had nearly 1M applications written for it while Mac OS had maybe 250,000 if that. In fact, iOS now has more application avail for it, than all versions of Mac OS and OS X combined.

That was the main reason why I was so ****ed at Jobs for what he did to Adobe. Adobe has been with Apple for a very long time. And have support Apple through the worse and bad time. For them to turn their backs on Flash when Apple has the most popular mobile platform was a crappy move by Apple. If I was Adobe, I would have pulled my software from the Mac period and just did it for Windows which has the vast majority of Adobe sales anyways.

Even today even tho Apple claims to be pushing HTML5, how many apps they got that have media that support it? NONE. Because the HTML5 spec doesn't have a completed way of handling media directly. Media through HTML has always used plugins. JUst like when you try to convince fans that many buy Android phones bec it supports flash. Many don't know what Flash is, what they do know is on iPhone they are tired of seeing lego blocks in places where a movie should be and on Android phones the movie is there.

Flash may not be perfect, but the claim it depletes battery is simply a lie. Facts show that HTML when handling video and audio use far more resources verse flash. Especially because HTML handles media using resource hogging plugins while Flash can integrate video and audio directly into the file and all you need is a supported player which if you just use the Flash API, will use the GPU to render the file vs tying up the CPU. Or it can use both.

This is why I hate Jobs even more and the fact they did a movie about the biggest tech douchebag in tech history is lame.

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Aug 19 2013, 8:42pm :