Creativity is a remix | Kirby Ferguson

Creativity is a remix | Kirby Ferguson


Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Morton Bast We’re going to begin in 1964. Bob Dylan is 23 years old, and his career is just reaching its pinnacle. He’s been christened the voice of a generation, and he’s churning out classic songs at a seemingly impossible rate, but there’s a small minority of dissenters, and they claim that Bob Dylan is stealing other people’s songs. 2004. Brian Burton, aka Danger Mouse, takes the Beatles’ “White Album,” combines it with Jay-Z’s “The Black Album” to create “The Grey Album.” “The Grey Album” becomes an immediate sensation online, and the Beatles’ record company sends out countless cease-and-desist letters for “unfair competition and dilution of our valuable property.” Now, “The Grey Album” is a remix. It is new media created from old media. It was made using these three techniques: copy, transform and combine. It’s how you remix. You take existing songs, you chop them up, you transform the pieces, you combine them back together again, and you’ve got a new song, but that new song is clearly comprised of old songs. But I think these aren’t just the components of remixing. I think these are the basic elements of all creativity. I think everything is a remix, and I think this is a better way to conceive of creativity. All right, let’s head back to 1964, and let’s hear where some of Dylan’s early songs came from. We’ll do some side-by-side comparisons here. All right, this first song you’re going to hear is “Nottamun Town.” It’s a traditional folk tune. After that, you’ll hear Dylan’s “Masters of War.” Jean Ritchie: ♫ In Nottamun Town, not a soul would look out, ♫ ♫ not a soul would look up, not a soul would look down. ♫ Bob Dylan: ♫ Come you masters of war, ♫ ♫ you that build the big guns, you that build the death planes, ♫ ♫ You that build all the bombs. ♫ Kirby Ferguson: Okay, so that’s the same basic melody and overall structure. This next one is “The Patriot Game,” by Dominic Behan. Alongside that, you’re going to hear “With God on Our Side,” by Dylan. Dominic Behan: ♫ Come all ye young rebels, ♫ ♫ and list while I sing, ♫ ♫ for the love of one’s land is a terrible thing. ♫ BD: ♫ Oh my name it is nothin’, ♫ ♫ my age it means less, ♫ ♫ the country I come from is called the Midwest. ♫ KF: Okay, so in this case, Dylan admits he must have heard “The Patriot Game,” he forgot about it, then when the song kind of bubbled back up in his brain, he just thought it was his song. Last one, this is “Who’s Going To Buy You Ribbons,” another traditional folk tune. Alongside that is “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right.” This one’s more about the lyric. Paul Clayton: ♫ It ain’t no use to sit and sigh now, ♫ ♫ darlin’, and it ain’t no use to sit and cry now. ♫ BD: ♫ It ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe, ♫ ♫ if you don’t know by now, ♫ ♫ and it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe, ♫ ♫ it’ll never do somehow. ♫ KF: Okay, now, there’s a lot of these. It’s been estimated that two thirds of the melodies Dylan used in his early songs were borrowed. This is pretty typical among folk singers. Here’s the advice of Dylan’s idol, Woody Guthrie. “The worlds are the important thing. Don’t worry about tunes. Take a tune, sing high when they sing low, sing fast when they sing slow, and you’ve got a new tune.” (Laughter) (Applause) And that’s, that’s what Guthrie did right here, and I’m sure you all recognize the results. (Music) We know this tune, right? We know it? Actually you don’t. That is “When the World’s on Fire,” a very old melody, in this case performed by the Carter Family. Guthrie adapted it into “This Land Is Your Land.” So, Bob Dylan, like all folk singers, he copied melodies, he transformed them, he combined them with new lyrics which were frequently their own concoction of previous stuff. Now, American copyright and patent laws run counter to this notion that we build on the work of others. Instead, these laws and laws around the world use the rather awkward analogy of property. Now, creative works may indeed be kind of like property, but it’s property that we’re all building on, and creations can only take root and grow once that ground has been prepared. Henry Ford once said, “I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready and then it is inevitable.” 2007. The iPhone makes it debut. Apple undoubtedly brings this innovation to us early, but its time was approaching because its core technology had been evolving for decades. That’s multi-touch, controlling a device by touching its display. Here is Steve Jobs introducing multi-touch and making a rather foreboding joke. Steve Jobs: And we have invented a new technology called multi-touch. You can do multi-fingered gestures on it, and boy have we patented it. (Laughter) KF: Yes. And yet, here is multi-touch in action. This is at TED, actually, about a year earlier. This is Jeff Han, and, I mean, that’s multi-touch. It’s the same animal, at least. Let’s hear what Jeff Han has to say about this newfangled technology. Jeff Han: Multi-touch sensing isn’t anything — isn’t completely new. I mean, people like Bill Buxton have been playing around with it in the ’80s. The technology, you know, isn’t the most exciting thing here right now other than probably its newfound accessibility. KF: So he’s pretty frank about it not being new. So it’s not multi-touch as a whole that’s patented. It’s the small parts of it that are, and it’s in these small details where we can clearly see patent law contradicting its intent: to promote the progress of useful arts. Here is the first ever slide-to-unlock. That is all there is to it. Apple has patented this. It’s a 28-page software patent, but I will summarize what it covers. Spoiler alert: Unlocking your phone by sliding an icon with your finger. (Laughter) I’m only exaggerating a little bit. It’s a broad patent. Now, can someone own this idea? Now, back in the ’80s, there were no software patents, and it was Xerox that pioneered the graphical user interface. What if they had patented pop-up menus, scrollbars, the desktop with icons that look like folders and sheets of paper? Would a young and inexperienced Apple have survived the legal assault from a much larger and more mature company like Xerox? Now, this idea that everything is a remix might sound like common sense until you’re the one getting remixed. For example … SJ: I mean, Picasso had a saying. He said, “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” And we have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas. KF: Okay, so that’s in ’96. Here’s in 2010. “I’m going to destroy Android because it’s a stolen product.” (Laughter) “I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” (Laughter) Okay, so in other words, great artists steal, but not from me. (Laughter) Now, behavioral economists might refer to this sort of thing as loss aversion We have a strong predisposition towards protecting what we feel is ours. We have no such aversion towards copying what other people have, because we do that nonstop. So here’s the sort of equation we’re looking at. We’ve got laws that fundamentally treat creative works as property, plus massive rewards or settlements in infringement cases, plus huge legal fees to protect yourself in court, plus cognitive biases against perceived loss. And the sum looks like this. That is the last four years of lawsuits in the realm of smartphones. Is this promoting the progress of useful arts? 1983. Bob Dylan is 42 years old, and his time in the cultural spotlight is long since past. He records a song called “Blind Willie McTell,” named after the blues singer, and the song is a voyage through the past, through a much darker time, but a simpler one, a time when musicians like Willie McTell had few illusions about what they did. “I jump ’em from other writers but I arrange ’em my own way.” I think this is mostly what we do. Our creativity comes from without, not from within. We are not self-made. We are dependent on one another, and admitting this to ourselves isn’t an embrace of mediocrity and derivativeness. It’s a liberation from our misconceptions, and it’s an incentive to not expect so much from ourselves and to simply begin. Thank you so much. It was an honor to be here. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause)

100 Comments

  • Luke Gibson says:

    Great Talk

  • Icariusnatarius says:

    Well in this speech yes, but in the documentary he made earlier it was more unclear. It certainly would also be interesting for him to try to draw a line where remix is "too remixed" : )

  • SHARIFF MOHD FAIZAL says:

    39 dislikes = apple's user

  • Linkcrc says:

    hes just saying everything come from something; its a thought process; rather try to patent everything like apple did; why not be brave and innovative.

  • Dylan Spronck says:

    It’s one thing to have an idea of something, for example a smartphone with multimedia, apps and web browsing. Copying is stealing the final product of that idea, for example the iPhone. It’s totally reasonable to steal an idea and make it your own, but not to copy the result someone else made of that idea. An idea can be executed in wildly different ways, without copying someone else. It’s what you make of it.

  • Third World Tech Junkie says:

    Those 40 dislikes are all the people that bought an Iphone 5.

  • Carling says:

    I LOVE THIS GUY!

  • VoiceOfAleppo says:

    i'm glad that steve jobs is rotting in his grave now!

    the guy was an insufferable narcissistic jerk ….period

  • phantomjn says:

    O yea, Apple isn't a copycat. #Myass

  • Matija says:

    Also check out Austin Kleon and his steal like an artist.

  • pig bodine says:

    I own iPhones & Apple products. Kirby Fergurson has introduced a "new" perspective on how tech is supposed to benefit and not stunt us. Thanks Kirby; triumph of TED.

  • f115 says:

    Of course the whole Led Zeppelin story is a real eye-opener.

    v=2AhPZx7AedE

  • Ablequerq says:

    No buttmad Apple fanboy comments? Wow great.

  • ellysooh says:

    That was an interesting talk with valid points. Unfortunately I think that our culture would have to undergo an enormous transformation even before our legal system could.

  • fcp says:

    Steve Jobs was angry about android for completely different reasons. It was more personal. During the iPhone's development, Steve Jobs had taken in two Google employees, and raised them, taught them how to work in the tech industry. They returned to Google, and spread the idea about the iPhone. When Apple released the iPhone, Google had released Android at the exact same time. This made Jobs feel betrayed by the employees he raised, and hence, why he is so incredibly angry about it.

  • Renato Fontes says:

    Someone had to create something new at the beginning before everyone else could copy it…

  • l2dusk says:

    Nature did.

  • fcp says:

    Steve Jobs before the iPhone: "We always have been shameless about stealing great ideas"
    Steve Jobs after the iPhone: "I'm going to destroy Androind Because it's a stolen product!"

    It was the betrayal that led that man who once believed in creativity coming from without to become the anger-filled asshat that he was. You have to admit, that is kind of sad.

  • MrBrunoline says:

    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." – Albert Einstein …

  • Ariel Saltos says:

    this guy would love my seminar class

  • Uvindu Perera says:

    Technology that iPhone incorporated was not 'Invented' by Apple. It's an aggregate of technologies that people developed over years. Did Apple manage to make a great phone? Yes. But that does not mean they own the smartphone business or can stop others making them. What's sad is how hollow Steve Jobs' words were.

  • fcp says:

    They weren't hollow. I'd like to believe that Jobs meant what he said back in 1996, and he lost faith in that ideal when Google released the new version of Android. He changed.

    I agree that Apple do not own the smartphone industry or can stop people from making them. Note that I never said that Apple invented any of the technologies – because ideas come from without, not from within.

  • codenamerishi says:

    If I have seen further, it is by standing among midgets – Steve Jobs.

  • Mr. E says:

    Nikola Tesla does not agree with this.

  • Sulabh Gupta says:

    by big i mean revenue and market cap. You can look that up anywhere.

  • ytmikelol says:

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    ~Issac Newton

  • xBOYISHx says:

    this guy really looks like jack black. on another note, a highly entertaining and informative video.

  • zero00tolerance says:

    Apple the asshole company of the world.

  • des1119 says:

    I believe we're talking about the morals and values of a person, which is much much more than just an "opinion".

  • André Rodrigues says:

    You can change your opinion, but you must assume it, and can be called out for it.
    It's very convenient to have an opinion favorable to "stealing" when you are the "thief", and then changing it when you become the "victim".

  • Field of View says:

    All companies are assholes, in fact they have no other choice but to be assholes. It's how the market works.

  • MozVolta says:

    What I hate the most about Apple is their attitude of "we invented everything", when clearly they didn't really invent much, then turning around and suing everyone simply because they were somehow granted a BS patent. Apple seem to be on autopilot at the patent office. Whatever they file for they get. Someone is getting a lot of free iPads at the USPTO.

    There's a YouTube video challenging people to find something Apple actually invented, and so far no one's come up with anything significant.

  • lockfred says:

    I've enjoyed my fully functioning microsoft and other non-apple products over the past few years as well. I also have an ipod touch which still works great(I take care of things). The three things apple turns me off for are the prices, compatibility, and overall (lack)freedom of customization… As if we're all going to open them up and steal ideas. What.

  • arcadian28 says:

    remake remodel by roxy music…cut ups by burroughs and ..bowie the career !! not new ..

  • MELODICMOODMAKER says:

    LAVOISIER :"In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes."

  • avedic says:

    Just got done watching his online documentary. Brilliant. Utterly brilliant…and very well made.
    I find it absolutely fascinating how biological evolution mirrors memetic social evolution. Copy, Transform, Combine….Cellular Mitosis, Mutation/Natural Selection, Sexual Reproduction
    It's the same thing…amazing.
    That's why the anti-evolution people bug me. They are denying the inherent function of not just biological life…but of reality itself. EVERYTHING evolves. Reality IS creativity.

  • n15512 says:

    Krishnamurti pointed out something very similar. "You would have no thoughts if you had no memory, and the response of memory to a certain experience brings the thought process into action.". In essence ideas are thoughts therefore they are just responses to the past. So every idea is just a response built from the memories of past experience. All you think is merely a rearrangement of what was thought and recorded. Progress/Innovation is just better remixing. How the precept that thought is

  • n15512 says:

    a "thing" to be somehow owned like a possession came about is utterly ridiculous in this light. Do we also "own" the experiencing that leads to memory and therefore the thoughts that are responses to it? This is why learning is the most important aspect of living. All forms of advancement/progress/innovation happen this way. Just a the Henry Ford quote admits. He learned what was done before him, pushed it further and gave credit where it was due. Steve Jobs, however, Obviously couldn't see

  • n15512 says:

    this for what it was when applied to himself. So often many want credit for things they never thought of in the first place. I'm an artist myself and totally love remixing ideas. To create is to "bring(something) into existence" for that to happen other "things" have to have existed first. We just copy,transform and combine, That's about as accurate as it gets when defining "creativity".

  • Gameboob says:

    I don't doubt that Creativity being based on past works is just an innovation of them so that nothing is radically new, but if an artist adds something of his own to a piece then isn't there still some ownership to be had? One can take old songs and change them to make their own, but the old songs, off which the new artist innovates, still "belong" in a sense to the old artist. I think the trickiest thing here then is the honesty that an innovator has, for economics creates impure incentives

  • DaniellicA KTB says:

    creativity comes from the inside, you just need to have on what …
    my thinking..probably poor English. me know.

  • olivia gordon says:

    This is Great Well Done !! and im 14

  • Hr Gott says:

    ???????
    boooooring!

  • Vanessa Blaylock says:

    Brilliant vision on remix & copyright! Thank You!

  • Bytemare says:

    apple <3

  • Aleksas Drozdovskis says:

    Great talk and the vision of #creativity and how to be #creative these days. 'Don’t worry about tunes. Take a tune, sing high when they sing low, sing fast when they sing slow, and you’ve got a new tune.' Woody Guthrie.

  • Adam Nicholl says:

    might of been said but comedians would be a good target for this remix theme

  • robertomasymas says:

    this was really good. I agree, except I am used to looking at things from a simpler perspective: patent law arbitrarily changes the dividing line between the haves and the have nots, so within national borders, it is hard to justify. International pressure helps justify patents, not actual basic rights.

  • Telepathic Teddy Bear says:

    Amazing talk!

  • dino rush says:

    This should have more views

  • Team Shmo says:

    The only time I would say copyright should be heavily enforced is if someone takes your exact idea/product and calls it there own. For example if Jay-Z makes a song and later someone literally has the same beat and lyrics, but say they made it all. Clearly it is just a rip off. 

  • Christopher Bear says:

    The Remix is more creative than creating nothing

  • Mir Sahib says:

    stealing is a bad word for the foundation creativity rather i should use 'inspire' as the foundation of creativity

  • Giul Hanch says:

    everything is a remix

    you are a remix, of both your biological parents

  • Jeroen Wiggers says:

    Check out this mix, that was inspired on the 'Everything Is A Remix' documentary series:
    https://soundcloud.com/quiqui/quiqui-everything-is-a-remix-195-songs-in-72-minutes

  • Chris Do says:

    "Good artists borrow (or are inspired by), and great artists steal" – Pablo Picasso

  • Oscar Fernández says:

    There are juuust a few things this guy doesn't think abut to do his assumptions:
    In music: there most be at least more than 7 consecutive identical music tones to consider it you stole something; the music is based in 7 basic notes, so OF COURSE much music will have similar notes.
    About the Grey Album: Of course it is a robbery if you take the music from The Beatles and you mix it without their permission, of course it is not legal!! And here is an example of doing it RIGHT, paying for the rights of the music of somebody else, and because of that even having the original artist doing a collaboration: RUN DMC, Walk This Way.
    He talks about taking the user interface taken from Xerox. Apple PAID FOR THAT, those who claimed were stolen were the designers because THEIR COMPANY SOLD IT WITHOUT THER CONCENT, but Apple paid to those who owned the rights.
    About multitouch and talking about it being presented one year before (that's 2006), well, the iPhone was announced in 2007, BUT of course it was designed and tested YEARS BEFORE. most of the companies, like Microsoft showing that Pixelsense table present their products when they're not even ready, when they are still prototypes, the Pixelsense came into market at 2008. Now, looks like this guy doesn't know Apple had right for that technology because yes, they didn't invented their technology by their own: They bought the company that made it!!! Most of the patents for the multitouch technology for Apple devices comes from those made between 1999 and 2005 by the company Fongerworks, and in that last year Apple bought that company, so those patents became property of Apple.
    This guy should know the difference between simply stealing without any consideration and yes, taking from others, but the legal way, that will be with the approval of the original owner, buying the product, it's rights or even the company; yes, of course in some cases there will be people involved that will not be OK with that (those from the team that created the graphic interface), but that problem this not belong to the company that pays, but the one that sells.
    And if other companies would like to use patents, design stiles or materials like those Apple uses, at least they should pay for using that patent, don't they??

  • Randolph's Grin says:

    what a great talk! so funny, and what a talented guy….

  • Dom Green says:

    Thanks for this!!! WOW BRAVO!!!!

  • ericcartmansh says:

    Patent laws are made by lawyers. Patents are written by lawyers. When you have a patent and you want to attack someone with it you need a lawyer. When you are attacked by someone with a patent you need a lawyer to defend yourself.

    The lawyers always make their money.

  • sknk92 says:

    And that's why Apple sucks and Steve Jobs is irrelevant in the computer scene.

  • fistful0fst33l says:

    Kirby Ferguson's face looks like that of a little kid.

  • esgarramanter says:

    That guy is very pro 80's, even the hairdo is 80's af

  • planesrift says:

    XEROX COULD BUT THEY DIDN'T. IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT.

  • Crouzier Benjamin says:

    Amen

  • Sean says:

    And this is why I have always hated Steve Jobs. He is not an innovater, he is a thief that should have been thrown in prison forever.

  • Ivan Mršić says:

    Was this made in POWERPOINT?

  • Jack Li says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA :'DD

  • Crystal Xmen says:

    SO UNORIGINAL!

    His face is also unoriginal. Think something new dammit!

  • Weird Mike says:

    Glad Steve Jobs is dead

  • Frederick Thorne says:

    Often, not always.

  • RedFlyer411 says:

    My mom has always used the phase "There is nothing new under the sun"
    She used this as a inflator and a deflator for my ego. Telling me that my ideas were old and there was no problem with me reusing them, but to do it in my own way. Not copying word from word.

  • Natalia Plachta Fernandes says:

    Seems to be comfortable point of view for people without imagination and crativity.
    How can you compare making a CAR/iPod to ART?! Really don't see any difference?
    Very important part of creativity is INTERNAL. And, sorry, but the truth is – not everyone is the same creative, not everyone is creative.
    Although yes, maybe in a way you can work on this, but it will be improving knowledge and ability of connecting facts, not creativity… But that's just my opinion 🙂

  • Technicolor Transformation says:

    It's hard to imagine anything that is not somehow a combination of other things. They say that the more someone packs their memory with such building blocks, the more possible combinations they can come up with, and the more likely they are to find a novel combination that is somehow seen or felt to be valuable, beautiful, or solves the puzzle.

  • Ryder Darrenson says:

    SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING IS A LITTLE MORE CLOSER TO CREATIVITY THAN PLAGIARISM

  • Amanda McMahon says:

    The fundamental idea of folk music is to create a new version of an old song or idea. Folk artists are story tellers that do so with the times and their job is to keep these old stories/song alive. So I think it's debatable weather you can call it steeling for a Folk Artist. That being said, its a fine line crossed too often. There is really only a need for this where there is a lack of creativity in the first place.

  • Revolutionz1500x says:

    Yeah, Ted does talk. He is Mark Wahlburgh's bear

  • sorrow the greninja assassin says:

    nothing in existence is original. every that came after enery, the only thing that technically existed the universe, is a rip off, even in chain of unoriginality. we are nothing original. humans, along with all other animals, and plants and all other multiple cell organisms are all ripoffs of the first single cellular organisms, which are ripoffs of elements and compounds, which alone are ripoffs of atomic build up, and even atoms are ripoffs of sub particles, which are ripoffs of quarks, which are ripoffs of the only real and original things to ever exist, energy and space.

  • I hate Everybody says:

    What the people in the comment section need to understand is, that he doesn't even judge anyone. He just explains how things are created and why it is so normal it happens like this. And I have no fucking idea why people dont understand that… Probably cuz they only watched one minute and already started flaming in the comments and then stopped watching the video.

  • Gobberfisch says:

    SimplePickup!

  • anjaneya naik says:

    Simple Pickup brought me here!
    thank you Jesse

  • АБУ СУФИЁН says:

    привет

  • htiguy1 says:

    Great talk!

  • F.S.C. LIGHTNING says:

    idk as someone who writes this is so sad somehow and I feel like I'm the only one…. but I think I'm not…xD it feels like everything creative is boring cuz it already exists

  • JanCarol11 says:

    I have always said that an artist is an input output creature. All output = not good for art. Garbage in, garbage out – these are all programming phrases – but I believe they apply to art, too.

  • Toyman Blood says:

    Everything you hear everyday are remixes, and for the most part, you tend to like them. You can't help but appreciate things remixed from ages ago with some components added – in the end of the day you'll be either left with a smile, or just exhale in displeasure.

  • Telph says:

    Breaking News! Apple just successfully sued Samsung for their "blatant copying" of their patented "slide to unlock" technology. Samsung owes Apple 119.6 Million dollars in damages. Its official, Apple just proved that everything that they invented anything electronic that has a switch to unlock. This is NOT a step in the right direction for copyright laws.

  • Toby Townrow says:

    Damn you for making me listening to Dylan. MY EARS!!!!!

  • Abdulaziz says:

    I was sent over here, by a relatively small YouTuber by the name of R Cody Wanner, he’s a vlogger and he motivates small creators like me to just upload videos.

  • Abdulaziz says:

    Great message! I’m 15 years old and is starting YouTube and the ideas in thsi video is super important to me!

  • Dhillon says:

    Your awesome! We as people need to understand each other, share the concepts and creations & not be selfish when opening boundaries to the world.

  • Mikegotlikes says:

    Anyone else come from jumpcut?

  • KandakeAmanirenas_and_MatriarchalChoctaw says:

    It's the lack of respect via overt acknowledgement that is problematic. So much has been stolen and copied, obviously borrowed and reworked, influenced and "remixed" without broad, respectful acknowledgement or reverence. Between Artists, that's a low thing to do.
    Success along with respectful appreciation is accomplishable by the honest. Only one of the hundred examples I could mention; Rolling Stones were very cognitively positive and proudly forthright about their influences and covers and borrowed bits from the music and lyrics and playing styles of African-American Blues, R&B, Jazz, Rock&Roll, AfroBeat, Dub, Funk and Disco musicians, composers and lyricists. Doing so positively affected those they borrowed from and were heavily influenced by as well, allowing them to earn greater respect and appreciation.
    Compare what I've mentioned regarding musical artists to some of the responses here about Apple Computers' Steve Jobs, who was a malignant narcissistic sociopathic abuser and known thief and user of the creations of others without crediting those creators. I use the word "thief" because he used words such as "created" rather than terms like "built upon," "borrowed," or even "very similar to," etc., where such a term would have been much more accurate, respectable/respected and appreciated by the originators and their peers and fans.

  • Waxadisc Music says:

    Very good presentation

  • Killer Whale says:

    was showed this in school, changed the way i think about a lot of things, terrific ted talk

  • Darwin says:

    "A musician is a sum total of his or her influences." -Yngwei Malsteen

  • Tarman says:

    This is wrong about Apple. For one thing, Apple was talking about multi-touch for the phone. The iPhone used a capactive touch screen and Apple developed a UI with multi-touch. What the original Surface (2007) and the Jeff Han multi-touch example used was an Infra-Red sensor that sensed where the fingers were and NOT a large capacitive panel. Without Steve, we wouldn't have got multi-touch screen-only phones til about 2012.

    Second of all, Jobs was quoting Picasso (based off of TS Eliot) and was NOT talking about stealing technology. Basically, stealing is taking someone's idea and making it way better. What Jobs is against is COPYING. Notice for example that Apple never sued Microsoft over the Windows Phone? Because even though it used multi-touch, it was totally different from the iPhone. On the other hand, Android was a complete copy of the iPhone.

  • Piano Keyboard Guide says:

    Love it!

  • Bun Baby says:

    Say this to the whole Tumblr community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *