Wolfram Language

He may not have written code or laid out circuits, but the work he did is extremely important in the process of creating technology. He wasn't just a promoter, he was also a shaper, he would steer the engineering team towards the types of solutions he was looking for and push them to achieve beyond what they would ordinarily do.

Having a vision of some kind of technology and then driving a team towards that goal is, undeniably, "creating technology".

So learn about science. Einstein wasn't "iterating" when he created the special and general theories of relativity -- these theories were very far afield from the physics of the day, and entirely original.

Charles Darwin wasn't "iterating" when be began to think about the fact that Galapagos finches from different islands had different beak sizes and shapes, and what that might mean.

Galileo wasn't "iterating" when he saw those four little stars that seemed to follow Jupiter around in the sky, and what they might teach us about Jupiter, and about earth.

Michelson and Morley tested the ether theory in their eponymous experiment, and their test failed. At the time, no one understood why. Decades later, Einstein explained why and replaced the prior theory without any help.

> Having a vision of some kind of technology and then driving a team towards that goal is, undeniably, "creating technology".

You just tried to equate a bus driver with a scientist.

Steve Wozniak created technology, Steve Jobs sold it to people. Please learn the difference between creators and promoters -- Wozniak didn't need Jobs to create a computer, but Jobs needed Wozniak (and many other similar people over the years, many of whom I knew personally) in order to have something to promote.

Which is exactly what I discussed. Again, you seem to think that only lower component parts are technology (e.g the CPU itself). And you think that building a product that utilises disparate component parts (and needs tons of other engineering decisions besides) is not "creation of technology". I believe this is wrong.

>If this distinction were not important, anyone who acquired a computer could claim to be its creator. If this distinction were not important, someone who put a computer in a box would be equal to someone who invented binary arithmetic.

Apple is not a company who "acquires computers". It designs and builds them, including solving tons of engineering problems in the process. That it doesn't (usually) build the low level component parts its beside the point. Technology is modular.

I also pointed out, which you conventiently sidestepped, that Apple also creates their very own products, from designing logic boards and dedicated processsing units, to software such as Logic, FCPX, iWork etc. They don't just buy some Intel cpus, some Samsung disks and some X brand memory, slap it together and call it a day.

>It means someone else had the education and creativity to invent something for Steve Jobs to sell, to call "fantastic" to crowds of eager consumers, to import into his reality distortion field. The same reality distortion field that makes you think selling equals creating.

You continue to use the word selling, as if the products appeared by magic or trucks, and Jobs just had to sell them. You forgot the part were Apple, the company he run, isn't Best Buy (a seller), but the actual creator of the products it sells.

Jobs didn't just sell stuff. That would be Jeff Bezos, or the Walmart guy. He was the CEO, and quite the micromanaging product manager in the company (actually, companies) that also designed and build those products.

He was the CEO of a tech company. Not the CEO of a reseller chain. And, yes, he wasn't an engineer himself. Technology, as available to the people, is not created by engineers alone, especially in the form of final products.

And engineers don't just work in isolation and deliver their stuff ready for manufacture to some sales guy. They take directions, advice, suggested changes to how stuff works, etc, from a product manager guy -- and Jobs was very much hands on with such things. For the mere selling of stuff, Apple had Cook and top level retail managers on board.

After all, you sure know that Steve Jobs had got the "Vollum Award for Distinguished Accomplishment in Science and Technology, Oregon's most prestigious academic honor"? How come they didn't just give him the "sales" award? Perhaps they see the bigger picture and understand that accomplishing stuff in technology is not just about the guy in the lab?

I know what you're painting the "those non-engineering higher-ups take the praise for our engineering work" angle, but I don't consider it accurate. It belittles the contribution of higher level execs to see them as mere "sales" guys. Of course, it's all to common a point of view in lab guys.