backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Nov 10 at 12:05 PM


Apple's VP of the iPod Division and iPod inventor Tony Fadell (the one with the red 'X') is out, to be replaced with former IBM top gun Mark Papermaster. IBM is suing Apple over the acquisition. Fadell isn't free from Apple quite yet -- he will stay on as iPhone inventor (yes) and Apple CEO Steve Jobs' personal assistant.  (Source: Engadget/Apple)
Apple will hang onto executive for "consulting" for a bit longer, still helmed by a familiar face

There's been a major shift of management at Apple.  Tony Fadell, Apple’s senior vice president of the iPod Division, the man credited with envisioning the iPod in the first place, is quitting his job after a wildly successful run of around 7 years.  He will remain on as a personal adviser to CEO Steve Jobs.

Mr. Fadell's wife, Danielle Lambert, is a vice president of Human Resources at Apple and also announced her departure.  She will be leaving at the end of the year.  The pair is cited by Apple as leaving their positions to "devote more time to their young family."

The move comes at a critical crossroads for Apple's iPod.  Nonetheless, the next generation devices such as the iPod touch and iPod nano regularly outsell their closest competitors by broad margins.

Mark Papermaster will replace Mr. Fadell and lead the iPod and iPhone teams, reporting directly to Mr. Jobs.  Mr. Papermaster was recruited to Apple after 25 years with IBM, serving much of his time with the company as a Vice President.  In a soap-operaesque twist, IBM is suing Apple for the acquisition, which it claims was illegal due to a breach of a non-compete agreement.  Apple, however, did not hesitate to appoint Mr. Papermaster to one of its most critical posts.

Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO was pleased with the news, stating, "Mark is a seasoned leader and is going to be an excellent addition to our senior management team.  Tony and Dani have each made important contributions to Apple over the past eight years. We’re sorry to see Dani go, and are looking forward to working with Tony in his new capacity."

While experience obviously trumps education in roles such as these, Apple was quick to point to Mr. Papermaster's academic credentials.  He completed a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Texas, and Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Vermont in 1988.  He is also cited by Apple to be active with the University of Texas where he is a member of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Advisory Council.

Of course, while Apple may be losing the “father” of the iPod in some capacity, it still has the inventor of the iPhone at its helm -- that's right, Steven P. Jobs.  According to the top of Apple's excruciatingly long 371-page patent opus covering the iPhone's user interface, Mr. Jobs was the first inventor to be cited (of 5 individuals).

Now perhaps if Mr. Papermaster and his team can invent a way to convince the iPhone's eccentric inventor to loosen up and allow some of the much requested, and long denied features customers have begged for on the iPhone, to go with some slick new iPods, the good times may be rolling once again.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By michael2k on 11/4/2008 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think you know what gravy means. From Merriam Webster's online:
"something additional or unexpected that is pleasing or valuable"


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By spwatkins on 11/4/2008 5:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you know what "literally gravy" means. Figuratively, your definition applies, but the "literal" definition is "the fat and juices that drip from cooking meat, often thickened, seasoned, flavored, etc., and used as a sauce for meat, potatoes, rice, etc." And now I believe that we have sucked all the fat and juice out of the original joke.


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By michael2k on 11/4/08, Rating: -1
By anotherdude on 11/4/2008 10:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
from Merriam Webster:

"usage Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary."

'Often appears in context where no emphasis was needed' - such as your post, which still makes it a misuse.


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By Gzus666 on 11/4/2008 5:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHA, you clearly should be using Apple products. Duh, I don't get what literally means.


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By michael2k on 11/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By Gzus666 on 11/4/2008 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literal&d...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally

Odd how the definition for literally literally contradicts itself. Check the meaning of literal and that silly definition isn't there. Nothing like internet dictionaries to give you a good laugh. The "ly" doesn't suddenly change it's definition, they are just turning the normal dictionary into a slang book. What next, yes can also mean no or maybe?


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By michael2k on 11/4/2008 5:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
You mean you would value a web dictionary's definition of the term over Merriam Webster's, which dates the word "literally" to 1533, making the use to be older than the United States?

It's not odd how the word "literally" might contradict itself. That's why it takes a little intelligence to actually understand English because English is literally broken, being an amalgamation of several different languages, cultures, and reinventions.

It's not like I'm making this up. The usage is also supported in the Oxford dictionary, which just means you're ignorant of the informal use of the English language.

Even YOUR citations, dictionary.reference.com, includes this definition of literally:
In effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

So every reference (Oxford, Merriam Webster, and Dictionary) supports my use of the term "literally".


RE: Free advertising for FullSix?
By Gzus666 on 11/4/2008 5:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Understood, that is why I'm saying it is a joke. If your definition contradicts itself, then it can't be right. Literal, as you can see, doesn't share that definition even though it is the root of the word literally. I gave Merriam Webster I gave the other dictionary.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally

Even better, read the antonym. Most heavy English nuts complain about American dictionaries and I see why. The date you give is the origin date of the word, not of the definitions they give. They only started publishing in the mid 1800s.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actually
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtuall...

The definition points to those words, which contradict each other in the same definition. Use the word properly and move on.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki