Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> how badly he fucked up

I don't think it's 'fucking up' to give something a good go but not quite make it, is it?

And why would every company in the industry even listen to a rant from Steve Jobs?

That'd depend on exactly how bad the screwup was but Steve Jobs was notoriously unforgiving if you made a promise and didn't have a good reason for missing it. That might not have been the case here, since they clearly slipped it due to the Intel transition, but if he was in an unforgiving mood or someone else was looking for a scapegoat, remember this example of how closed the community was at the time:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23...

I think the "Steve Jobs" part is just a random assumption from the parent.

More likely he'd have problem being hired at that level simply because he would be associated with a major failed project, Jobs or no Jobs.

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

"OK, I've seen enough, " Steve interrupted me. "It's great. Apple is going to bundle it with the Mac. Congratulations."

But then he paused, and stared at me for a moment with an incredibly intense gaze, as if he was sizing me up or maybe just trying to scare me.

"But I don't want you taking advantage of this situation. I'm not going to allow you to take advantage of Apple."

"What do you mean?" I asked him, genuinely puzzled.

"There's no way that you could have written that program without confidential information that you learned by working at Apple. You don't have the right to charge whatever you like for it."

I started to get angry. "The program is only half finished, and if I don't think you're paying me fairly, I won't be motivated to finish it."

Steve gave me another intense stare as he paused for a few seconds. Then he stated a single number, without explanation.

"One hundred thousand dollars."

"I don't know," I told him, "I think it's probably worth a lot more than that."

"Don't argue with me. $100,000 is fair, and you know it."

I didn't seem to have any alternative but to capitulate to Steve's price setting,

there are better Steve stories on that site, mostly about abuse and psychological manipulation.

Which proves and is related to the story how?

> "I entered Steve's office with a bit of trepidation, because I thought that Switcher was worth at least a quarter of a million dollars to Apple, but I was sure that Steve would never want to pay me that much. But I was also proud of Switcher, and was interested in seeing how Steve would react to it."

The previous paragraph

Not every company would, but the CEOs of the major tech companies that a guy with Terry's impact would have probably liked to work at? I'd buy it. Those guys talked all the time, and I doubt they were gonna let one hire get in the way of a major corporate relationship.

> I don't think it's 'fucking up' to give something a good go but not quite make it, is it?

If I understand correctly,in this particular situation, fucking up would cost Apple at least $200M--so it had to be a total success for him.

I'd put the initial fuck-up on Apple marketing, who used the UNIX trademark without license nor compatibily.

This was an attempt to repair the damage that had already been done, by passing the UNIX compliance required to become an official, paid, licensee.

In bigcorps, marketing can freely make false claims, and engineering is on the hook for delivery.

You are technically correct that this was a sales fuckup, but the shit storm would 100% be directed towards the “underperforming, delivery-target missing” programmers.

Isn't this a good example of engineering and management working together to make changes over multiple departments?

The engineers got time to asses if the project was feasible and what kind of support they need. Management fully supported them and made the other departments play ball and they made allies in other departments that helped them making the changes necessary.

They were asked if they could do a job and given the time and ressources to asses the situation. If they had any doubts they could've said no and let the legal department take over.

It's legals mistake. Ads have to be run by them. They should have caught it.

> I don't think it's 'fucking up' to give something a good go but not quite make it, is it?

If the CEO sets a goal for the business, and you 'gave it a good goal' but failed, causing the business to miss its goal, with consequences including lost revenue or lawsuits, in that CEO's eyes you fucked up. The CEO was counting on you to take a letter to Garcia, and though you 'gave it a good go' Garcia never got his letter, so why would that CEO consider you someone to count on again?

> And why would every company in the industry even listen to a rant from Steve Jobs?

Because he built this industry.

> If the CEO sets a goal for the business, and you 'gave it a good goal' but failed, causing the business to miss its goal, with consequences including lost revenue or lawsuits, in that CEO's eyes you fucked up.

Are you under the impression that for example lawyers are fired every time they lose a case and a company has to pay out?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com