The Jobs book
scripting.com
scripting.com
It's true that the book is not written by someone with a deep understanding of technology, but this is mostly a story about Steve Jobs the man, and not technical detail. What comes through in the book is that Jobs was a very difficult and troubled person with a tremendous energy to try to do things 'right' (for his definition of right).
I've found it a very enjoyable read. Here you have a book written with the cooperation of a man who knows he's dying and wants to talk about his story. It's an interesting book because it's not a hagiography nor is Jobs making excuses. Early in the book he says straight up that he behaved poorly towards his parents and Lisa Brennan-Jobs and at the same time can't quite recall stiffing Woz out of money for the Atari work.
And of course there's no reason you should care what I think.
Can't think of a single reason. :-)
Now, I can understand why someone might not be interested in those things, but to me that doesn't invalidate the book.
BTW, I started it and wrote about the first 50 or so pages here: http://jseliger.com/2011/10/24/the-steve-jobs-biography . Note that the book itself is actually nicely and well-made; it feels like a Jobesian artifact, instead of the usual publishing industry pablum.
Instead of complaining about how non-insiders keep trumpeting up "bullshit", help shed light on the truth.
Your post would be much more valuable had you provided even one concrete example of this.
To me it seems like the reason this book may be hard to read for some people is due to the public persona of Jobs over the past decade. He was an icon for all things Apple. How dare this non-technical person speak of Jobs in this light!? Surely he feels this way because he "doesn't get it" and "doesn't get his vision". Seem familiar?
Maybe that's the wrong feeling a person should have. Maybe he's just a brilliant man with flaws like everyone else. Maybe the real Jobs isn't what you pictured in your mind and this book is ruining your perception of Jobs.
Edit: not sure when I hit reply on this comment, but this is a general observation to everyone.
If anything he is too disenchanted, knows a lttle bit too much, and is too sure of his own version of the lore.
I happen to disagree with this point of view for consumer products. I believe the content should be curated, poured over and held to usability standards. That is the only way that we'll be able to empower ordinary people, people who aren't engineers, programmers, or have ample time to fiddle with the software. If Jobs wanted everyone to be able to use his devices, to make it a household item, then he was going to have to make it fool proof. Jobs recognised that cynical connection, he wasn't just being a cunt for the thrill of it.
Coincidentally, if they weren't elitist on the development end, then they were being elitist on the consumer's side.
What is wrong with Steve just making intelligent decisions about products, than attributing it to scars from his childhood? Nothing, except that it isn't as interesting.
In Dave's article, what I really liked was when he said they weren't really all that special. That is so very true. Real life heroes in the tech industry may not be that heroic. They don't need to be, at least to some of us. Sometimes I feel some of the most successful people in our industry (like Steve, Zuck, BillG) are actually peers, who had somewhat better intuition, better timing, better business sense; they certainly did a few things better. But definitely not beyond the comprehension of some people (though, not me) who comment here.
And there are of course people who are actually heroes to me, not merely peers who do a lot better. For example Scott Aaronson, though I understand very little of what he writes. I just know that even if I had chosen a different path in life, that stuff would still be way beyond me.
Don't know if this made any sense. :)
IMO, this still applies to software. That is why the whole debate to stay or drop out of school even exists. You don't see lawyers, accountants, doctors, or journalists for that matter debate on the merits of school to advance their career. If you write code, consider yourself lucky to still be living in this "golden period" where just a little skill and ambition is all you need to make an excellent living doing enjoyable work.
The decreased need for education in software engineering shouldn't be used as an indicator of its competitiveness. On the contrary, one could argue that is actually more competitive, because anyone can enter the field at any time.
Dave Winer is an exceptional person but I don't like how he writes as if he was a complete equal to Steve Jobs. Just because Dave Winer doesn't think of himself as special, doesn't mean Steve Jobs wasn't special.
The people that think they are super-exceptional, are often the ones that end up being super-exceptional.
Do you know of a mathematical formula that allows you to compare two whole human beings?
To think otherwise is an exceptional form of hubris. And of course that extends to you and to everyone else who comments here.
And now that he's gone, I'm more of a person than he ever will be. I believe that's the sad truth of what death means, Sean. Gone is gone.
To facilitate a mature conversation, one might want to set the tune first.
It is entirely my fault.
And in death Jobs equals Hitler, ramen.
No one is equal - or perhaps you know of some physical or natural law that demonstrates this supposed equality? If anyone was equal to another they would be identical and indistinguishable.
I know of a mathematical formula that allows me to compare to whole human beings: what value have I received from your existence vs. another's existence? It's an imperfect formula, no doubt, but it's not equivalent to null. Specific people have far greater influence on any given individual than all people have influence. Therefore, they are superior people from the perspective of that individual.
The last statement lacks sufficient context for me to comment: "And now that he's gone, I'm more of a person than he ever will be" - I can't determine the meaning. I suppose it's something like: any person that is alive at this moment is better than any person that has ever lived and died. And that's not supreme hubris? (Perhaps there is some indication you're referring to the potential of a person living vs. the potential of a person dead, though that ignores the reality of continuing influence and inspiration that some dead people retain while a living person likely never achieves at a similar scale.)
But of course there's really no such thing as "complete equals". Put me in a foot race with any other healthy 35 year old, or compare my oil painting output with that of any trained artist, and you'll quickly see why.
Ah, well that's a bummer. You know, it's funny, when you only read someone online without any face to face context, you kind of mentally fill in a profile of them that probably has no bearing on reality. I had you mentally pictured as something from the Age of Pericles, a mix of track and field style athletics, a little painting, a little sculpting, a little philosophy, a little music, a strong understanding of people, a thorough writer of both poetry and practical arts, a solid craftsman, a strong orator with a bent for rationality and a nuanced sense of justice, and successful in commerce and trade. This is how you've come across in writing, to me at least.
It's silly that you would write as if you were a peer to Jobs. Only a handful of people were, people like Gates, Ellison, Grove. Even those guys aren't special in the big way Jobs was. It's not required that you like him to acknowledge his special place in the tech world.
One tends to get the sense that any time Winer writes something negative, his real concern is that people aren't paying him enough attention.
I like your honesty. You know you don't know what you're talking about, and you have the guts to say it.
This is not a book about Apple and it's not a book about technology. It's not supposed to be "The Soul of a New Machine." It's about Steve Jobs. Did Dave not look at the cover before he started reading? It's all right there.
Reporters do have a harder time than devs. There are a lot of solo devs, they're even exalted for their indie developer-dom.
But there aren't exalted indie investigative reporters (if there even is such a thing as indie investigative reporters). Being a reporter does mean that there's a longer ladder to climb than creating a startup and getting funding.
And sure, it'd be nice to see his source material eventually. But I'd rather see the coherent package of his research in a narrative book form rather than his notes. I'll trust Isaacson to tell the story of Steve Jobs through his own interpretation, as that is all that a biography can be.
I'm not sure about characterizing a biography as a "commercial product"; although although it is the source of the author's livelihood, and the publisher is a for-profit entity, it is a complex entity as a product. The author depends in this livelihood in having access to materials from others, it is not unreasonable to think he may reciprocate in some circumstances. In any case, in future years (after the initial sales peak of the bio), releasing the source documents may even cause a revival of interest that helps residual sales.
It happens. Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12jackie.html?pagewante...
Sometimes that's just a byproduct of spending a lot of time with someone; you can't spend all those hours with a person without starting to see things at least a little the same way they do. Other times it's a condition they had to agree to in order to get that access in the first place.
You can't call this biography "slanted" without suggesting that Isaacson sold himself out. He may have, but that's a serious accusation.
ps. Thank's to the mod's for removing the negative editorializing from the submission title.
The story Winer is referring to is how Kottke never got any stock options. According to Isaacson's book, Jobs refused to even talk to him about the issue, instead brushing him off and steering him toward other execs who told him that as a technician he was ineligible for any options.
Eventually, Wozniak ended up giving Kottke some of his own options.