Mix: WWDC, Apple Support, iPod chef, Jobs’ house | iLounge News


Mix: WWDC, Apple Support, iPod chef, Jobs’ house

As expected, Steve Jobs will give a keynote address to kick off Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference on Monday, June 11. The address, which will begin at 10:00am Pacific, will center around Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

Apple has launched its revamped support site, with large graphics for top support issues and easier overall navigation.

Renowned chef Heston Blumanthal of the UK restaurant Fat Duck has begun loaning iPods to diners who order his “Sound of the Sea” dish. The iPods are loaded with sounds from the ocean, meant to enhance the dining experience.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has lost a key court ruling in his bid to demolish “The Jackling House,” which he bought in 1984. In 2001, Jobs received a demolition permit for the home, which was built in 1925, but a group called Uphold Our Heritage sued to save the home. Jobs has previously referred to the house as an “abomination.”

Related Stories



iPods and architecture all in the same update?  It’s like the internet was written just for me.

Posted by alexarch on May 1, 2007 at 1:05 PM (CDT)


It would’ve been cheaper for Jobs to have found another site for his namesake mansion, and certainly would have been less a black mark on his legacy. Chalk one up for respecting our heritage. Now if he’d only sell the place and allow those who care about and respect such things to repair all those years of neglect and decay to the building while in Jobs’ hands.

Posted by flatline response on May 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM (CDT)


Tear that sucker down. It’s his property, he should be able to do what he wants with it. Anyone who doesn’t like that can come up with the money needed to buy it from him, if they can.

Posted by m.s. on May 2, 2007 at 7:16 AM (CDT)


m.s. Apparently you have absolutely no understanding of the basis for land use and historic preservation law. The laws are designed specifically to prevent what you advocate from happening. In fact, one of the landmark cases provides that certain properties belong to the public trust and can’t be destroyed. Think of some of the famous privately owned landmarks out there - The Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building and several Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. By your standard, anyone could go in and buy them and destroy them. The fact is, we still live in a society and we have to play by the rules of society.

Posted by urbanslaughter on May 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM (CDT)


...Still, I don’t like the fact of “owning” something and not being able to do with it as I please.
I understand what you are saying urbanslaughter but it someone wants to tear down their house and build a new one, on their property I still think they should be able to.  Maybe my outlook is inaccurate but it is a house right?  ...and it is his right?... were’re not talking about buildings are we.  Maybe I need to see a picture of this thing to understand better.

Posted by 3rdEye on May 2, 2007 at 10:33 AM (CDT)


Its status as a house or building doesn’t matter. Private ownership is private ownership. The fact of the matter is that the American people (through their representatives in Congress) have stated that certain pieces of architecture are so important and valuable (as works of art) that destruction or even alteration is not left solely to the owner. Think of it this way. If you owned the Mona Lisa should you be able to pour acid on it? I mean, you OWN it right? Obviously the answer to that is no. A house or building is no less a work of art than a painting or sculpture.

Posted by urbanslaughter on May 2, 2007 at 10:47 AM (CDT)


How we deal with this in the UK -

Posted by Bob Levens on May 2, 2007 at 11:02 AM (CDT)


Urbanslaughter - You have no concept of private property. It’s a “taking” without compensation. It shows no respect for the future. So what if the owner wants to tear down the Chrysler building - to preserve it you can buy it from them. Can’t afford it? Then STFU.

Posted by m.s. on May 3, 2007 at 7:07 AM (CDT)


Actually, that’s not accurate m.s. He bought the house with the protective legislation already attached. So a takings claim would not be applicable. For it to be a regulatory taking there must be a diminished value as a reslut of the regulation. Since the protective legislation was on the property when he purchased it, there could be no such diminution in value. Since I’m an environmental/land use attorney, I think I do in fact have some idea about private property.

Posted by urbanslaughter on May 4, 2007 at 11:12 PM (CDT)


The point of such legilsation is to protect the interests of society . . . even those who could not purchase the building. In a democracy the rights of the wealthy are no more important than the rights of the poor (in theory). It’s “one man, one vote” not “one dollar, one vote”.

Now, had he owned the property and moved forward with plans to demolish it and then the municipality or state passed legislation limiting his use of the property, THEN, he MIGHT have a takings claim, but even then it’s a difficult claim to make.

Posted by urbanslaughter on May 4, 2007 at 11:20 PM (CDT)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy