Why does one have to invent something to get credit for being great?
Great painters did not invent painting. Great architects did not invent architecture. Great baseball players did not invent baseball.
They took existing thing and made them better than anyone before them ever has and, perhaps, better than anyone who follows them ever will.
Under Steve Jobs, Apple took things or ideas that existed and turned them into must-have items like no one has ever done before.
Jobs was the Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright and Babe Ruth of the tech industry. It is like someone would say, "Ruth was a great hitter, but he did not invent the home run, so why all the fuss?"
MotionMan
Well, DaVinci actually painted The Annunciation and Mona Lisa--Michelangelo actually painted the Last Judgement, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (with his studio, of course), he created Il David, Moses, La Pieta.
At the same time, these great artists had studios, employing a stable of artists to complete the many, many projects that the masters had designed and had been commissioned to complete. They directed, and their employees set about crafting these large commissioned projects (like the tomb of Julius II), to have the Master's name stamped on top of it.
The latter model, the Studio model--is Jobs. Not so much to discredit his ability to direct; but the real Masters--he actually liked to consider himself an artist--the
real Artists touched chisel to stone, brush to plaster, and developed into great directors, while also creating great work until the end of their life (the Dome of St Peters, the 3rd Pieta...).
Jobs didn't touch, or create, a single one of his creations. He strong-armed talent to do his work.
Jobs was not Picasso or Wright--are you going to argue that Picasso never painted a single one of his works?
Babe Ruth didn't simply take credit for those home runs. He actually hit them.
Facebook
Twitter