He is not any of those people, his closest historical analog is Henry Ford. They were brilliant businessmen who had a critical insight early in their careers (people want usable electronics vs production line economics).
They were able to find success across multiple products through superior business skills and by sticking to their insight.
Finally, they each lived in a time where a new technology was coming to the masses, and they the business leaders bringing this to them. Due to their methods, the masses really appreciated them for what they did.
It may seem more amazing to you, but I would argue that is only because you are not likely in a position to be amazed by the magnitude of the importance people like Edison and Turing had on this world.
This is forgivable, but please note that he was talking about contribution to society, not "wow factor".
By 'usable', do you mean that your one year old child can browse the app store, find something they like, install it, and use it?
At a new location, can they identify the correct wireless network to use, and enter the password?
Or do they just use an easy subset of what the ipad offers? We don't go "Wow! the toy piano is easy enough for a toddler to use!" and gush over it, because we know the toddler isn't using the piano like some virtuoso.
The iPad isn't a computer, it's a toy. A kid quickly learning how to use a toy is neither new nor outstanding, and least of all a contribution to society.
Cost 600 bucks. How does that help civilization. Oh maybe a few well pampered hipster's children get access to it, but how does that work for the rest of the world that averages 2 bucks a day income levels?
While I'm hardly an Apple apologist, I just wanted to remind that technology that is initially only available to the top-of-the-line models ends up on cheap models a few years from now, but only because its development was paid for by the relatively rich early adopters.
In Ghana, more than 60% of people have a mobile phone, but that wouldn't be possible if the development of the hardware (both for the actual devices and the network infrastructure) hadn't been made cheap by years of development paid by the rich countries.
If we're comparing it to things as ubiquitous as computer technology itself and electric lighting, then I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that the relatively exclusive nature of the ipad puts it at a disadvantage in such a contest.
IMO You can't compare 'contribution to society' like that, as if you could make a 1-dimensional scale that rates people like the ones you mentioned. It's useless. In some ways Jobs contributions to society have definitely been bigger than Turing or Edison, in some other ways, they haven't. You can't average these things objectively.
Turing, not by a long shot. In 200 years we'll still be talking about Turing machines and decidability. I don't think you can say the same for any of Edisons or Job's ventures.
This is one of the most gratuitous and condescending replies I've seen on HN. You don't know anything about me, so why would you insult my intelligence?
Computers are very hard to use for people outside of our bubble. Changing that is a major contribution to society and far more than a "wow factor". Seeing disabled people use an iPad is an amazing site.
I'm not interested in ranking ligt bulbs vs iPads, it servers no real purpose. And I'm not particularly interested in having a discussion with an asshole, but I wanted to point out how absurd it is to call something that opens doors for so many people as merely a "wow factor". You are not likely in a position to understand much beyond your own narcissism.
"Would it be different with any other large touch screen interface?"
Yes, I have an android phone and my wife has an iPhone. My 1 year old can navigate between apps, find the app she is looking for, and use them without assistance on any IOS device. She can't do the same on an android device.
The parent comment was about the man himself. In the case of the iPad he may have the guided the process but the real work wasn't by done by him. It was done by the very skilled people he hired.
It is far harder to choose the right people and guide the process than people seem to believe. There are so many talented people, yet we get very few good products.
I must disagree. While Jobs' contributions are not quite on the same level as what Edison, Einstein, Hopper, Ritchie or Turing did, Bill Gates did nothing at of that magnitude.
Had Microsoft never existed, 8-bit home computers would have used another version of BASIC. There were a couple floating around (you can play with them with an Atari or BBC emulator). Had Microsoft never existed, IBM would have adopted CP/M as its OS and PC clones would have been built around it (and would be more diverse because CP/M was much more portable than MS-DOS), but I doubt they'd be as common as they are today. We would probably have a much more diverse hardware environment (think Amiga, Archimedes, Transputer), which could have created a cross-platform standard for software, most likely based on POSIX and X. Apple would still have launched the Lisa, and the Mac and they'd be successful. The web would be born anyway and so would be free and open source software (but there would probably be much less incentive to use it).
It's a horrible thing to say, but had Bill Gates decided to be a banker or a lawyer, the world would be a much better place. He would still be rich (because he was born that way).
Paul Allen would still have made his name in tech, possibly with MITS. Ballmer would have graduated from Stanford.
Actually, he's funding the work, not curing Malaria himself. And he's doing that in order to redeem his legacy, something that wouldn't be necessary (redeeming his legacy, not curing Malaria) had he not made Microsoft in the first place.
And, BTW, he didn't invent this idea of amassing vast resources with shady deals and then becoming a philanthropist and redeem himself with this. Andrew Carnegie did it first.
They were able to find success across multiple products through superior business skills and by sticking to their insight.
Finally, they each lived in a time where a new technology was coming to the masses, and they the business leaders bringing this to them. Due to their methods, the masses really appreciated them for what they did.