
The decade of Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple  - Chirag
http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+decade+of+Steve+Jobs%2C+CEO+of+Apple+-+Nov.+5%2C+2009&expire=-1&urlID=414157027&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F11%2F04%2Ftechnology%2Fsteve_jobs_ceo_decade.fortune%2Findex.htm&partnerID=2200
======
johnrob
"The company was worth about $5 billion in 2000, just before Jobs unleashed
Apple's groundbreaking "digital lifestyle" strategy, understood at the time by
few critics. Today, at about $170 billion, Apple is slightly more valuable
than Google"

The author probably forgot to consider that google was a 2 year old startup in
2000. The kudos really should go to google.

~~~
mrshoe
Turning an internet startup into a $170 billion company in 9 years is a rare
feat. Turning a $5 billion, 25 year old computer company into a $170 billion
company in 9 years is far rarer.

------
raganwald
_hagiographic_

~~~
lsb
Hagiographic is Greek, from "hagios" = saint + "graph" = writing, meaning
"writing about someone as if they were a saint".

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common.
We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as
little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

~~~
raganwald
> DH0. Name-calling.

I disagree. I said nothing about the author, I said something about the tone
of the story. Read the definition of the word you supplied:

> writing about someone as if they were a saint

What name does this call the author? For that matter, is it even derogatory
about the story? I think it's a factual description of the post. If you choose
to take it as a negative statement about the author by way of being a
criticism of the story, I think your argument reflects biases I do not share.

