The day Steve Jobs dissed me in a keynote (2010)
sive.rs
sive.rs
He was one of the best at this. PowerPC is not keeping up with Intel? Spin it! (Then switch.) Everyone hates DRM? Spin it! (Then drop DRM.) People are nervous about your antenna design? Spin it! And give ‘em a bumper. (But don’t change the antenna.)
What he said publicly was not necessarily a reflection of reality, it was whatever he thought would best position himself and his organization at that moment. In tech they called it a reality distortion field. In politics it’s called a day ending in -y. :-)
Obviously Apple did not have a problem with CD Baby because they did do the contract. And obviously they did not actually have a quality concern about the cheap $40 fee because they kept them even as it went to free.
It’s a classic small business supplier story: the big guys will do what works best for them and the little guy will have to deal with it in order to get the benefit. The most common example is how long most big businesses take to pay their small suppliers. It’s not intentionally malicious, just relative indifference. Like a big truck running over a raccoon because it’s so hard to swerve or stop.
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” - The Melian Dialogue
From the 2017, uh, molecular neuroimmunosociobiology survey paper Aggression, Social Stress, and the Immune System in Humans and Animal Models by Takahashi, Flanigan, McEwen & Russo – https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00056
(These are serious, credentialed people. The tl;dr is that "losing" is proinflammatory and subjugating others is antiinflammatory. In the brain. Which is behavior-modifying.)
Jobs allegedly spent years lying about whether his daughter was his daughter. That's not necessary for Apple to succeed. That's just being a dick.
The bar is pretty low among that population, though.
importance is now how organ donations are managed.
I don't know that I can blame him though. Having been involved in friends and family members with medical problems, there are SO many people that muddle through understanding, and then deciding what to do. Conflicting advice will come from all directions.
It seems only doctors, usually with a lifetime of experience, have medical directives ready and they are usually DNR type decisions.
It doesn’t make sense to me why someone would see the numbers in a case like this and decide not to act.
If you're still an alcoholic, you're not getting a new liver. There is required sobriety and testing first. You may have had issues that caused you to get there, but you will be sober before you get the liver.
Not the same thing. Jobs example (and I don't inherently agree with the GP, just saying) would be more like being able to drink up to the point of your transplant and then keep on going like you've just had a pit stop.
"Steve Jobs and the Next Big Thing"
There is actually a Youtube video from The Computer History Museum on the book with the author and key figures from NeXT’s history [Recorded May 26, 2026] (haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnNdb2wa_NE
"Creative Selection: Inside Apple's Design Process During the Golden Age of Steve Jobs"
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=ken+kocienda&i=stripbooks&crid=37...
i was there. his mercedes sl often just had the mercedes barcode that sits under where plates would be mounted, with no plates. rationale unknown, but perhaps to make a stubborn point?
I remember back then cars just purchased had NO tags until they came in the mail.
I think you had to have registration information taped to the front windshield with the VIN facing outward and usually the person's name folded inside so it couldn't be read.
Paper tags were only introduced in 2019.
The only thing he was good at as lying to create a brand image.
Apple from Jobs to Cook screwed over many. At least Jobs didn't train the Chinese to undercut US manufacturing.
>Four minutes in, he said something that made my pounding heart sink to my burning stomach:
>“This number could have easily been much higher, if we wanted to let in every song. But we realize that record companies do a great service. They edit! Did you know that if you and I record a song, for $40 we can pay a few of the services to get it on their site, through some intermediaries? We can be on Rhapsody and all these other guys for $40? Well we don’t want to let that stuff on our site! So we’ve had to edit it. And these are 400,000 quality songs.”
In 2003, there were 2 special events with Steve Jobs keynotes about iTunes and he's referring to the 2nd one on October 16, 2003 (deep link to that quote) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvCJ613HORA&t=9m00s
(For trivia reference, the first one was April 28, 2003 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9o46zK5Jo)
>Whoa! Wow. Steve Jobs just dissed me hard! I’m the only one charging $40. That was me he’s referring to!
The author Derek Sivers left a lot of details out but here's how I interpret the situation ...
As prerequisite background, you can categorize "record labels" into 2 groups:
(1) the record label pays the artist for music via "advances", paying upfront recording costs, marketing etc. These are the traditional record labels like Warner, Universal, Sony, Motown, etc that "develop" the artist by making financial bets and losing money on most of the signed roster but making a profit a tiny number.
(2) the artists pay the "record label" -- where these entities are mostly used as a "distribution" intermediary. CD Baby and Tunecore would be typical examples.
Now look at the convoluted process with physical CDs that Apple forced CDBaby and other independents to use:
>The Apple guys said, “Sorry, you need to use this software; there is no other way.”
>Ugh. That means we have to pull each one of those CDs off of the shelf again, stick it in a Mac, then cut-and-paste every song title into that Mac software. But so be it. If that’s what Apple needs, OK.
That is basically a form of "proof-of-work". Apple didn't necessarily want everything from CD Baby. Instead, they just wanted the stuff CD Baby thought was worthwhile enough to expend time & effort to mess around with physical CDs.
The big labels didn't have to do that because they already did a form of "proof-of-work" via paying in advance for artists.
The issue is that Derek didn't "read between the lines" to understand what Steve Jobs and the convoluted upload process was trying to accomplish. I suppose business people could just speak plainly so they don't get mixed messages but sometimes they don't.
What you're describing is a nice side effect of that for Apple, but the reality is they're not going to do the bitch work of importing all those songs from a hodge podge of whatever formats they're given. They didn't have a better tool available at that time to make their catalog consistent.
It's very believable that Apple felt enough urgency to rush this phase.
When you’re putting out a message to a large amount of people, no matter how much time and effort you spend trying to get the words just right so everyone understands, there’s always going to someone that misunderstands it and gets offended.
It seems pretty unambiguous to me.
It's ambiguous and a contradiction because I think it's just an example of Steve Jobs saying one thing but his actual actions say something else.
In his "full persuasion mode" (as Derek puts it), he says he "wants all their music" to make the indies feel good ... but forcing them do the physical CD ripping and entering metadata is really the final authority on what he really wanted at the time.
He didn't make the big labels jump through hoops like that. He signed Sony just a few weeks before the iTunes Store went live in April 2003 with 200,000 songs. Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
So... "If Steve supposedly wants _all_ our music, why is he making us manually load CDs?!?" ... well... maybe you can't take everything Steve says at face value? Likewise, charging $40-entrance-to-iTunes breaks another "unwritten rule" that Steve disapproved of. Same as the "unwritten NDA" Steve never had anyone sign or agree to.
I can't think of anything dumber than all the tedious work forced upon people by "the telephone game" and a lack of oversight. That's intrinsic to any office.
They had a capability and then immediately demanded it be used as soon as possible. No deeper thinking is required.
There was very little incentive to force the moves you're claiming Apple intended to. You've got it backwards. This is exactly how Jobs' "reality distortion field" actually worked. People would overthink every time he was wrong or flat out didn't give a shit. His overrated status compelled people to make things so, and you're falling for it like they did.
> Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
Did you ever consider that it was "effortless" for the big labels because they invented the formats iTunes used along with all the guidelines for how uploads should work? Why wouldn't iTunes take their lead instead of the other way around? The goal is to get this shit out the door now and make money. The big label archives already had things in the right formats and properly audited to be consistent, or they had the means for a quicker turnaround if they didn't. Of course it would be massively easier for everyone except the indie labels.
The pattern has been there since the 90s, but younger people fall for it. What they say is primarly PR, and any truth is a happy co-incidence.
Me, looking at all the slop on the App Store...
I have to assume you and the author (at that time) aren't familiar enough with the corporate world to realize all discussions containing privileged information (contract details that would never get a press release) are confidential by default.
Of course Apple would never think they'd have to explain this. It's a reasonable expectation for them to have.
They're lucky Apple found a quick remediation. They delayed signing the contract because they had to wait and see if any damage was caused. Next steps would have been renegotiating or lawsuit.
Every company I've worked for (mostly F500s) has had an onboarding document you sign in which you're notified that everything inside the company is confidential by default. It doesn't expire.
Most of these companies also had annual training (the usual corporate policy refresher stuff) and this was mentioned during that as well.
I've worked on some very hush-hush projects. In my experience, NDAs were for people outside the corporation...partners, vendors, etc. Everyone who was employed by the corporation was under an NDA by default. I don't think I've ever signed a subsequent NDA for something my employer was working on, because I was already under one.
And even if they didn't do all this formally...it's a reasonable expectation. I would never think I'm allowed to discuss anything that wasn't publicly announced with outsiders.
Anything that is supposed to be confidential has a signature. This is because without it, the person "leaking" information can always claim ignorance.
Because if CD Baby was acting as a middleman and a gateway for indie music distribution, Apple's move to shut it out was about preventing power from becoming decentralized and keeping control concentrated in Apple's hands to position iTunes as a premium platform. On top of that, if CD Baby had monopolized the indie music market, any future platform would only need to deal with CD Baby, which would have been a burden down the line.
It was likely a strategy to capture the entire music market. Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft. I don't know what the image is like in the US. Personally, I've always thought Apple's premium strategy is terrible
So, the purest form of evil there is?
> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.
They are indeed just as bad as each other. I think Microsoft just got unlucky and had a lot of bad-PR emails leak. If that had happened at Apple he'd probably have someone killed.
Apple was the underdog at a point where Microsoft got its bad image by virtue of it's monopolistic practice. I can't help but think that a lot of it is a combination of inertia and MS pissing off a sufficient subset of geeks at a point where we made up a much larger proportion of the online discourse and so could set the tone. And for at least a time, in part by virtue of MS bad reputation, a subset of geeks saw Apple as a possible saviour.
It also helps that for all of its calculated business behaviour, Apple also has a reputation for better quality that makes people want to give them passes for things MS wouldn't get a pass for.
At least Apple's destructiveness was mostly related to market realities and their own product (still waiting for a replacement for my Newton MessagePad --- my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ sort of works (but not daylight viewable), my Kindle Scribe ColourSoft is quite nice, but way too limited and no 3rd party apps other than what can be done via PDFs or HTML)).
I could list endlessly the issue with iPhones and Macbooks, but they're _just_ more convenient enough to have to use them over alternatives. Lots of little examples like the way that Airpods work when jumping from the same video call on my phone to my Mac for example, add up to be useful enough to put up with just how shitty iPhones are.