The History of the iPhone on its 10th Anniversary [audio]
internethistorypodcast.com
internethistorypodcast.com
If I had read this quote 2-3 years ago, before trying to found a startup, I would've thought that Jobs was a crazy asshole. While the latter point is still up for debate, I can now completely sympathize with how he felt in this moment.
If you're a madman tyrant asshole and your product is OnLive[1], you're just a madman tyrant asshole with a failed product because you didn't realize that your company's problems are far outside your scope of control.
If you're a madman tyrant asshole and your product instantly destroys two of the only three major smartphone OSes on the market at the time, you're Steve Jobs.
[1](I'm just picking on them as a failed startup, I have no idea what their CEO's management style was.)
Jobs' legacy on the behaviour of so many future companies will be an interesting one, because some people only looked at that one side, and ran with it.
I'm not saying Jobs was not smart - but chance and luck was a huge factor in his successes. He wouldn't have had his come-back had Apple bought BeOS rather than Next.
And he would sometimes defer to people he trusted even if they diametrically disagreed with him. He _really_ didn't want to do an App Store and wasn't ever convinced it was a good idea until it was launched, but he saw that Forstall wasn't going to give up on the idea so he relented.
PS. Yes, I know that Forstall left Apple after Jobs' death but Jobs and Ive pretty much saw eye to eye on the design of Apple products. (Edit: Removed "Steve famously hated skeumorphism.")
One example is the iPad Contacts app. Originally it was a simple list of contacts like you'd find in Outlook. This was changed to the "little address book" UI that looked like a leather-bound address book much later in the process because the original UI wasn't "fun" enough.
(Unfortunately, I think they fired the guy who, among all of them, was the most like Jobs, and I think Apple has suffered as a result.)
To say that he was fired for skeumorphism is insane. Jobs was responsible for that stuff.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-why-i-fired-scott-fo...
Apparently the iCal stitching was copied from leather seats on Jobs' private jet! You couldn't make this stuff up[1].
1. http://www.cultofmac.com/189707/steve-jobs-himself-is-respon...
Dave Wiskus: According to legend, it was the exact leather and stitching on his private jet.
This "my way or the highway" attitude is how companies turn into shitty little fiefdoms filled with incompetent losers lorded over by a bunch of goons.
Also, if you have to do this more than once then just fire the guy.
I agree, never take abuse from anybody.
OP said: "looked at you and very directly said in a very loud and stern voice"
Your edit: "screaming at someone, swearing and calling them out in front of their peers"
However, I do concede that this kind of language motivates a certain kind of employee in desperate situations.
Yet at the same time he was not 100% asshole 100% of the time. He had a kinder side that was less often reported, the circumstances often highly personal and less newsworthy.
The reason people tolerated his outbursts or his general dickishness is because they saw what he was doing and they respected his vision. Being a dick may have helped him at times and hurt him at others, but it's just how he was. Everyone else seeking to emulate him on those terms is going to be an insufferable dick because they're missing the other elements.
Relationships are complicated, especially between lovers and co-founders. Wozniak has a lot of axes to grind, but he's also not going to piss all over Steve just because of those.
If you read the account from the Pixar side of things, his other multi-billion dollar company, he had a whole different attitude towards engaging with that team. Apple was his baby, his entire life, while Pixar was a business venture.
I'm sure there's a littany of other grievances large and small but on the whole he's not predominantly a bad guy.
Just as we shouldn't make him out to be some kind of saint who could do no wrong we shouldn't vilify him for the many mistakes he made. The way you're beating on this drum sure sounds a lot like what he did was so monstrous it overshadowed his work.
He's no Roman Polaniski, Woody Allen or Bill Cosby where the transgressions are so severe you'd want the person shunned, their work permanently stained by their horrible actions. He was a dick, he was difficult, he was emotionally demanding and verbally abusive, for that he'll always be guilty, but as far as anyone's been willing to divulge he never crossed that line to something violent or irreparably dark.
The problem with tech is that behaviour way, way worse than what Jobs ever did is given a free pass. The problem is not Jobs.
I don't understand how anybody could take this seriously. I mean, one of the hallmarks of Apple was its focus on secrecy. How could one person make a product fail when 90% of the people working on a product had no idea what they were actually working on to begin with?
I really wonder what the turn over at Apple is, and if it was higher among employees that were not upper management but had to deal with Jobs.
Thankfully I am in no danger of finding out about Apples work environment first hand.
(>"I can now completely sympathize with how he felt in this moment.")
It's a way of communicating.
When the device on which he's bet the company is still misbehaving an hour before the critical keynote demo, it's not too terribly hard to understand how someone would use this kind of language, harsh though it be. Jobs was Jobs, of course, and whatever else could be said of him, I have never gotten the impression that he had a lot of patience for people or prototypes which he did not regard as being up to snuff. But this is a context in which perhaps it's harder to blame him than in a lot of others.
Does anybody know who this guy was?
"The process could be intimidating, but Jobs had an eye for talent. When they were looking for people to design the graphical interface for Apple’s new operating system, Jobs got an email from a young man and invited him in. The applicant was nervous, and the meeting did not go well.
"Later that day Jobs bumped into him, dejected, sitting in the lobby. The guy asked if he could just show him one of his ideas, so Jobs looked over his shoulder and saw a little demo, using Adobe Director, of a way to fit more icons in the dock at the bottom of a screen.
"When the guy moved the cursor over the icons crammed into the dock, the cursor mimicked a magnifying glass and made each icon balloon bigger. “I said, ‘My God,’ and hired him on the spot,” Jobs recalled. The feature became a lovable part of Mac OS X, and the designer went on to design such things as inertial scrolling for multi-touch screens (the delightful feature that makes the screen keep gliding for a moment after you’ve finished swiping)."
Well, the iPhone 6 and especially the iPhone 7 do exactly this, so apparently you can indeed do exactly that. I wonder what has changed to make it possible.
“We put a sign on over the front door of the iPhone building that said FIGHT CLUB,” Forstall testified. “Because the first rule of fight club is that you don’t talk about fight club.”
I found this bit wonderfully ironic given the anti-consumerist nature of the movie. Shades of Reagan playing 'Born in the USA' on the campaign trail.
What do you think Tyler's goal was in that movie? His fight club -> project mayhem plan seemed to go off the way he wanted it to. If you think he wanted to promote that free-your-mind, reset-the-score, you-are-not-your-possessions ideology, that desire seems to fit with the fact that he's the alter-ego of Norton's unfulfilled white collar weakling character. But you lay out pretty convincingly that Project Mayhem is more of a trick, trading one kind of prison for another. What would compel Norton's alter-ego to play such a trick?
Consider that blowing up the headquarters buildings of credit card companies does not suffice to achieve, or even approach, the goal of wiping out debt. Offsite backups are a thing. It doesn't even impair the operation of the business all that much, because disaster-recovery plans and hot failover sites are also a thing. All told, Project Mayhem might have produced a period of as long as a whole weekend during which bank cards wouldn't work, and maybe not even that. But even if we're exceedingly charitable and assume they brought all the settlement systems down for a whole week, that doesn't materially affect debt held by credit customers, especially in light of the brief spending boom that'd almost certainly occur once people's cards started working again. So blowing up the HQ buildings is big, flashy, maybe a bit expensive for a variety of real estate insurance companies, and ultimately pointless.
And the way I read the character, Tyler Durden knows this is the case all along. The only person he really cares about selling on his line of bullshit is his own alter ego "Jack". Durden exists because "Jack" created him, and "Jack" created him because "Jack" wants convincing that he's not as meaningless, not as worthless, not as pointless, as he feels himself to be. Because he feels himself that way, he can't muster the emotional resources to do this work for himself, so he creates Tyler Durden to do it for him, and Durden does it very well. Creating a fringe political movement that blows things up is incidental, and occurs not because Durden thinks that's a thing worth doing in its own right - it's an open question whether Durden can even be considered to have agency or consciousness independent of "Jack" - but because it serves the purpose of convincing "Jack" that he has a purpose.
This is a problem someone else might solve by volunteering at a retirement home or joining a church or starting a family - or all of the above, perhaps - but "Jack"'s too much of a nihilist to really believe in anything outside himself, and too much of a narcissist to really buy into anything that doesn't center on himself. We see the former in his internal monologue, which the film helpfully externalizes for us, and the latter in his behavior at the various support groups he parasitizes in the first act. So "Jack" eventually invents Tyler Durden, and Tyler Durden invents Project Mayhem, and this pays off for "Jack" twice over: first when he finds himself to have become the barycenter of a movement that has people ready to kill and die to advance its goals, and then second when he decides it can't be borne and sets about to destroy it, thus becoming able to conceive of himself as a virtuous man struggling against all the odds - and, in "killing" Durden at the climax, eventually succeeding in that struggle. The property damage, like the existence of Project Mayhem in the first place, is incidental; the only meaning it has in the context of "Jack"'s evolving self-experience, and thus in the context of the film, is an indication of the extent to which it's necessary for "Jack" to go in order to bridge the gap between how he perceives himself and how he needs to perceive himself in order to tolerate his own existence.
Of course, one's experience of oneself is rarely static, and Palahniuk and Fincher are too skilled in their respective crafts for it to be mere coincidence that Fight Club ends when it does. It would perhaps be interesting to watch "Jack"'s tenuous grasp on life disintegrate completely, along with his circumstances, over the next several days following the climax of the film. But I doubt it would add all that much of appeal to the experience, or have a fingernail's chance of getting past the first test audience on which it was tried.
Very few people can successfully podcast in a monologue format. The only person that comes to mind is Malcom Gladwell.
Thanks for sharing.