[overbroad]

No hurt feelings. No yelling. Here's my point: real simplicity is the stuff of Dennis Ritchie. Not Steve Jobs.

As I said, Apple makes beautiful hardware. And you could say they promote a certain "simplicity" of use. Maybe you could even call Apple hardware "simple". I don't know. It's an enclosure with a board inside. What I do know is that once you get to the software side, Jobs is not the guy who should get credit for "simplicity" of design. That guy should be Dennis Ritchie. Alas, many journalists will never know this and write about it, because they don't spend time learning C and UNIX (whereas they do spend time using learning and Apple products that are built with C and UNIX).

It is the simplicity Ritchie gave us, his design philosophy, that allows so much to be created, like the software that drives Apple products. Anyone can create simple things or complex things in software, but we all need to start with something simple in order to do the building. That something is not the work of Steve Jobs. It is the work of Dennis Ritchie and colleagues.

If the title did not use the word "simplicity" I would have no comment. Jobs is a hero of design. But simplicity, to me, is another matter. He is not the true source. Even the early Apple computers where the software was "simple" were not the work of Jobs, but of his co-founder, who is not longer part of Apple.

[JohnBooty]

I agree with you: Ritchie's contributions, because they're at the core of so many things we use (including iOS and OSX) are more influential than Jobs' contributions (which are pretty darn influential).

However, please re-read the headline you've got an issue with: "How Steve Jobs' Love of Simplicity Fueled A Design Revolution."

Does the article claim that Jobs' creations were the simplest ever? Or that his simplicity trumped that of Ritchie? No.

Also note that the article is clearly talking about a design revolution. Did Ritchie spark a design revolution? No.

(Well, he did, in operating system design. But that's really not the sense of the word "design" the article is using...)

So I don't understand what your problem is, other than the fact that you don't like Jobs' contributions a great deal. The claims made by the article are utterly orthogonal to the importance of Ritchie's work!

[overbroad]

"(Well, he did, ... "

That's all I'm saying, really.

I see "simplicity" as orthogonal to the idea that Steve Jobs led a revolution in design. I see the so-called revolution he led as being beautiful hardware enclosures, of all sizes. But this is just my opinion. I expect many would disagree.

I also expect many would not choose to look at these devices past their enclosures and what they see on the screen. From that limited perspective, it certainly looks like Jobs made everything simple. (Me, I think Ritchie and his colleagues did that. They dared to simplify when no one else would. Apple like many others took the ball and ran with it. But unlike many others, they also build hardware that looks fantastic... from a marketing standpoint, this is a winning combination.)

[13rules]

Alas, many journalists will never know this and write about it, because they don't spend time learning C and UNIX (whereas they do spend time using learning and Apple products that are built with C and UNIX).

It's not because journalists don't spend their time learning C and UNIX — it's that they (and their readers) don't care.

It's like saying that Mark Zuckerburg shouldn't get so much credit for Facebook because without Rasmus Lerdorf (creator of PHP) it would have been impossible for him to build the site.

The number of people that care about Steve Jobs/iPhones/iPods/Facebook = a lot.

The number of people that care about Dennis Ritchie/C/UNIX/Rasmus Lerdorf = a much smaller number.

Being a genius pioneer in an industry oftentimes does not bring notoriety with it. Bringing a product/service to others not in that industry oftentimes does.

[overbroad]

I thought about this and I agree. Sort of.

There was a time when no one cared about Apple computers.

It's one thing to not care about something that you are not (made) aware of. It's another thing to not care about something that is common knowledge.

If Apple was not using UNIX and C, if Steve Jobs had not pushed them to drop OS9, I might not be thinking of Bell Labs when I look at Apple. But essentially by using New Jersey's work, in my opinion, Steve Jobs was admitting "We can't do any better." He borrowed someone else's work of simplicity.

I guess a lot of developers want to believe the public will never ever know how to build things, simple things, using the same substrate as Jobs. That's fine. Personally, I'm not so sure. At this point the public is still not even aware the possibility exists. We don't necessarily know what they'll do once they know. Would anyone have dreamed Apple would displace Microsoft as the most popular computer brand? Would anyone have dreamed companies would embrace "open source"? The future is unpredictable.

[hnriot]

I think the true source of simplicity goes way further back than Dennis Ritchie. Maybe look more in the arts that CS for the origins of minimalism and simplicity....