Wozniak: Facts in Steve Jobs movie look 'atrocious' | Hacker News Reader

Wozniak: Facts in Steve Jobs movie look 'atrocious'

cnn.com

120 pointsmactitan57 comments

The neatest part of this article is where Woz talks about Aaron Sorkin's upcoming Steve Jobs film, which he is consulting on and says will "play out in three extended scenes, shot in real time, that depict Jobs at three product rollouts: the Macintosh, Jobs' non-Apple product NeXT, and the iPod."

Now that's something to look forward to.

Seems strange to leave out the iPhone product announcement, especially since the iPod announcement was pretty low key ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs ), and was not an obvious hit at the event. Compare that to the iPhone announcement where everyone went wild right then and there, and truly felt like the culmination of Steve's vision of what computing should become (the iPod in retrospect seemed more like a side project that didn't really "mesh" with his general philosophy on computing).

I think the iPod is the spark of the Apple that we know today, and as such is momentous.

Given that Apple's stock was ~$9 when the iPod was announced and Apple is now the most valuable company, this really was the first step - and further - we pretty much know the rest of the history after that.

It would not necessarily make sense to skip the iPod and jump to the iPhone as it was an iterative revolution that made them what they are now.

Some of those steps in the iterations were obvious, some predictable, others surprising but all were mind-blowingly successful.

I agree the iPod was important to Apple's financial history, but I don't think it was particularly important to Steve (I understand I can't know this for sure), nor does it fit the narrative of what Apple brought to this world. I'm not saying that the iPod announcement should be left out, just that it shouldn't end with it. If the movie's point is that this was the beginning of the turnaround for Apple's financial woes, then it misses the point of what Apple (and Steve) have been trying to do for computing since the beginning. I think this is a common mistake, and could be done even worse by ending the story with the announcement of the iMac for example. If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history, and will be quite disappointing (of course I haven't seen the movie so for all I know there is a completely separate point they want to make which will be great for other reasons). However, if the point is to analyze Steve the man behind Apple, then leaving out the iPhone is a bad start.

In a lot of ways, the iPod is the antithesis of the battle Steve and Apple have been metaphorically fighting. The software on the iPod was junk, it was very much a device in the spirit of the way things "used to be done", a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand. From the Mac to the iPhone and finally the iPad, you can see a clear vision of not having computers be generic hardware with forgettable software, but rather finely crafted hardware in the service of amazing software. Apple's treatment of the iPod post-iPhone (and Fidel's subsequent leaving of the company shortly thereafter) are very telling.

I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone. The iPhone is very much in the "family tree" of the Mac, and not the iPod. The iPod was ultimately just a toy. Everyone at Apple knew this as well. The iPhone was the next step. Ending the story with the iPod is telling it through the eyes of a financier and not as a technologist or a philosopher or a student of Mr. Jobs. And under any interpretation its hard to argue that it is simply missing the end of the story.

>If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history...

Or, it could simply be the setup for a sequel. Leaving time for an intermission to see how well this story is received, how well the actors actually are perceived and providing the funding and traction for the next movie....

I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone.

It boggles the mind how one could not see it that way. While it isn't a general purpose mobile computer, it is a mobile computer.

At one point in the iPhone's development, there was an internal battle at Apple on whether to use the iPod OS, or a minified OS X. Many were skeptical that a desktop OS could run well on a pocket device. It seems an obvious leap in hindsight, but it wouldn't have been then.

The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage.

> a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand.

Jobs admired the founder of Sony a great deal; as they say, this would be a feature, not a bug. :)

> The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage.

So are a great number of other things that we can draw conclusions about. We could argue that the Apple laptops were incredibly important, as they were the first steps in making OS X run under "mobile conditions". In fact, you could say that the introduction of OS X itself should be on display because it is what runs basically everything Apple does now from desktops to phones to tablets to apple tvs. I could actually make an incredibly academically interesting argument that Pixar was crucial to everything else that happened at Apple because in many ways it restored the credibility of Steve Jobs, and made him fabulously wealthy. However, if you are making a movie that focuses on just 3 events in Jobs life, you probably would not choose the moment he decided to invest in Pixar. Any number of events and devices were precursors to the iPhone.

Supposedly this movie is going to be about him preparing for these announcements. He will perhaps be reflecting or ruminating about the importance of what he will present. Prior to the iPhone announcement, Apple and Steve had everything at stake in a way unlike any other event since the Mac, and certainly moreso than the iPod. Had the iPod failed, it would have been just another forgotten Apple consumer electronic, like the Newton or Apple printers. Yes, perhaps that would have then indirectly lead to a domino effect of other products not being created, the iPhone included. But with the announcement of the iPhone, the very meaning and philosophy of the company were put on display. I was on the original iPhone team, and I can distinctly remember the way he would talk about the iPhone before it was released, it meant something more to him. And if you are going to make a biopic about Steve Jobs, the iPhone needs to be a part of that. Just watch him introducing the iPod, and then the way he introduces the iPhone. Think of it another way, if you could go back in time and talk to him before the iPod announcement or the iPhone announcement, which would you choose?

Again, I haven't read the script, for I know its covered in some other way. However, just from a surface understanding that it is just going to cover those 3 events in a vacuum, I don't feel very confident about this film. But I will of course reserve judgement until I see it.

Agreed that the iPhone announcement is clearly more significant than the iPod one. People forget that the latter was perceived as a dud on day one; the room was small, the fanfare was minor, and it was much more expensive than people were used to paying for music players. I was referring to the overall history of the product; the announcement itself does seem like a bizarre inclusion.

You're also spot-on about OS X. I'm excited that NeXT is going to be part of the film; Apple wouldn't have rebounded as powerfully without it. It's easily the most wildly successful flop in history.

It was clear when it was announced that this was going to be the inaccurate, sexy, mainstream Hollywood version of a Jobs film. It stars Ashton Kutcher for god's sake.

I think everyone on HN is unanimously looking more forward to Aaron Sorkin's film. Most of the mainstream non-tech-world Hollywood-Ashton-Kutcher audience has not seen the actual product announcements nor do they even know they exist. For most people, the iPod announcement was word of mouth and TV ads. Meanwhile a lot of the type of people who read HN somewhat worship the Steve Jobs keynotes. I know I've watched nearly all of them.

In fact I'm sure there will be a spike in "everyone else" watching them for the first time if Sorkin's movie is popular and brings them to the mainstream. For now they've just been a total geek thing to indulge in. :)

Why would we look forward to Aaron Sorkin's film if we don't want an "inaccurate, sexy, mainstream Hollywood version"? Did we forget The Social Network that easily?

Aaron's won't be that. I don't think his goal is the same as was with The Social Network.

But Aaron Sorkin did write The Social Network. Any evidence to point that he is working on a truer rendition for the Jobs' movie ?

Well, Woz is involved, and he seems optimistic.

Woz has also been out of the picture in Apple since before the Mac. He's been an outsider for close to 30 years, and has publicly stated that he was not close to Jobs.

It's not clear that his involvement means much in terms of making it an accurate portrayal.

Yeah...but Woz was very close to Jobs pre-Macintosh. Considering Apple's early years consisted mostly of Woz, Jobs, and Mike Markkula, I think Woz would be essentially to understanding the early part of Jobs' success, without which the post-Macintosh days would've never happened.

Different source material.

"a lot of the type of people who read HN somewhat worship the Steve Jobs keynotes"

I don't. I'm not sure why so many people in this readership should love them. Most probably just don't care.

"A lot" of people can still like them if you don't. Jobs was, undeniably, a master of presentation, so even if you don't like him, or apple at all, there are still a lot of reasons to respect his stage presence.

Sure it's not a biography but the issue is that it will be perceived as such by regular movie goers. That's the power of Hollywood as a propaganda machine. People will be referencing events from the movie as if they were 100% accurate. They will make character judgements; and on the long run those judgements will transcend from the movie to reality.

Zuckerberg found The Social Network to be significantly less than 100% accurate, but perhaps a better movie because of it.

It's a shame. The truth of their relationship is entertaining and fascinating in itself. I suspect it would be even more so if Woz wasn't such a humble mensch and would rather be polite than talk trash. It's just a shame that he doesn't get more popular respect so that more people aspire to be like him...for every Jobs, we need someone as good as Woz

The more I learn of Woz I'm more impressed. Like listening to him. I agree that he's a good role model But is his personality conducive to driving a business? It seems the tyrants are more successful.

I think just about everyone agrees, including Woz, that Woz would still be building calculators at HP if it weren't for Jobs. But Jobs would've never had the necessary early success without Woz's genius.

Are either of those points actually true? I don't think so.

So the second point, about Jobs not succeeding without Woz, is only speculative (but highly likely, given Woz made technically possible). But the first point is as indisputable as history can get.

When Jobs decided to create Apple, Woz declined to quit HP at first. Only when Woz was convinced that he could remain an engineer even while heading the company did he consent to join.

So back to the speculative point: Jobs was incredibly desperate to have Woz come on board, even to the point of having a crying fit. IIRC, both Issacson's biography and iWoz (Woz's autobiography) say that Apple's third man, Mike Markkula, was convinced that they should go on without Woz.

To Jobs' credit as a genius, he apparently realized that Woz was essential to his success.

Just a side note on the subject of "learning about Woz," If you haven't already, I highly recommend his book iWoz. it's a really interesting recounting of his early days as an engineer.

folklore.org also has some great early apple stories, including many about woz.

Woz is too good an engineer to be a manager.

Jobs was the intuitive enabler, Woz was the thinker who almost knows how to dance.

I'd say Woz's role was far more pivotal than Jobs'.

For every salesman, you need several engineers to actually create and build a product worth selling.

Steve Wozniak was working on the prototype Apple I as a hobby and that's all it would have been without Steve Jobs.

Jobs convinced him it could be a business. Jobs had to sell his minivan and Wozniak's calculator to build the first batch of computers to sell at local computer shops. Jobs had to cajole and motivate Wozniak into being part of Apple Computer Inc rather than just an HP employee who gave away circuit board diagrams at HomeBrew meetings in his spare time.

Once the story of the Mac begins, Wozniak was practically retired, working mostly on education and coming up with neat ideas for remote controls. Jobs was motivating and cajoling the generations of brilliant engineers that would make the Mac, the NeXT Cube, the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Jobs was never a sales guy, he needed other people to do that. He was a motivator and a critic.

I'm aware of all of that, but it doesn't change anything that I said. Steve still depended on others to produce the goods - what you posted there just confirms my point.

Also, I will concede that he's more than a salesman - as you stated about him motivating. However that doesn't make him an inventor, creator, designer, engineer nor any of the other attributes people credit him with.

By that argument, no director could have been said to have ever created a film. The cinematographer did the photography, the scriptwriter did the writing, the SFX department did the effects, etc.

Woz did a spectacular job with the Apple I design, but it wasn't the only kit available at the time. And even then he used off-the-shelf parts like the MOS 6502. Matter of fact, a kit that slightly predated the Apple I was the KIM-1, which also used the 6502. Difference was that the KIM-1's designer Chuck Peddle also designed the 6502 processor (yep, the one Wozniak used).

Steve Jobs kept going throughout the years, long after Wozniak stopped: the original Mac, the NeXT computer, NeXTSTEP, Mac OS X, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iOS, all of these were as much the creation of Steve Jobs as Yojimbo was Akira Kurosawa's creation or 2001: A Space Odyssey was Stanley Kubrick's film.

I'm disappointed in that unlike The Social Network, which had no other film as a reference to compare to, this film already has Pirates of Silicon Valley as a precedent. While Jobs didn't care for the film, Woz thought:

"The personalities and incidents are accurate in the sense that they all occurred but they are often with the wrong parties (Bill Fernandez, Apple employee #4, was with me and the computer that burned up in 1970) and at the wrong dates (when John Sculley joined, he had to redirect attention from the Apple III,not the Mac, to the Apple II) and places (Homebrew Computer Club was at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) ... the personalities were very accurately portrayed." (http://www.woz.org/taxonomy/term/2)

Jobs must have liked it somewhat though, otherwise he wouldn't have had Noah Wyle reprise the role in an Apple keynote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClAanU7Os

Looks to me like Jobs uses the entire exchange as a way of undermining Noah's performance in the movie:

"I invited him here today to see how I really act" etc

It's a fairly standard comedy pattern: start with a celebrity impersonation, then have the impersonated celebrity come out and critique the performance. SNL uses it a lot, e.g., (the real) George H. W. Bush coming on and critiquing Dana Carvey.

Unrelated to this article but more based on what I've read elsewhere - to me, this movie just doesn't seem very innovative, unlike the subject. It feels like the producers wanted to cram Steve's whole life into a one and a half hour film without any compromise. On the other hand, I love the idea of Aaron Sorkin's movie, with three scenes of Steve getting ready for important product announcements. I think that's a great compromise and much more in the spirit of Steve Jobs's work ethic.

Of course, I have not seen the movie, just basing this off of articles I've read :)

This is like inception misrepresentation. An article about Wozniak condemning the accuracy of a movie, which is itself very misleading.

I was at the talk, and I can say first hand that the tone of the talk never came anywhere near the way this editorialized paragraph would suggest:

> "Totally wrong. Personalities and ... the ideas of computers affecting society did not come from Jobs ... . His idea was to make a $20 PC board and sell it for $40 to help people... build the computer I'd given away ... . [H]e always saw a way to make a quick buck off my designs (this was the 5th time). The lofty talk came much further down the line."

The theme was closer to how he and Jobs were a great team because he would come up with designs and Jobs always had a way to make them money from it even saying explicitly, "...and we'd always split the profit."

I will be posting the full video of Woz's very informative and inspiring talk on YouTube with highlights as soon as it gets approved by legal. Hopefully that will be this Monday...

Please do. I never get tired of listening to Woz speak. :)

Here is the full Woz conversation! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIKTes4BzXo

As atrocious is Kutcher's performance. The guy will ridicule Jobs legacy with his poor acting. I saw the trailer and it was awful. And the guy they choose to play Woz resembles more Hurley from Lost rather than Wozniak.

I knew Jobs personally, and I have to tell you, an accurate portrayal of his behavior by an acting prodigy -- or a straightforward documentary using real footage -- would do more harm to his reputation than a shallow script and modestly talented performer.

Why do you say that? I think the closer someone could get to portraying Steve Jobs, the better it would be.

> I think the closer someone could get to portraying Steve Jobs, the better it would be.

Okay, if by "better" you mean more accurate and unvarnished, of course I agree. I was referring to those who want Jobs to be portrayed as a technological saint.

I don't want an accurate portrayal of Jobs. That would probably make for horrible entertainment. This is a movie that is clearly not intended to be accurate so much as entertaining, much like The Social Network. I would have much higher accuracy standards for a documentary.

In that case, we're talking about two different things. BTW I happen to agree that the film is meant as an entertainment, not a documentary.

I’m not talking about treating Jobs as some kind of semi God. Actually I generally dislike Apple. But one thing Jobs was known for was his passion. And the kid who portrays him has no passion at all in his acting. That’s what made Noah Wyle’s performance so good in my opinion. He was totally into it.

Vuze search rendered zero results for "jobs"+"sundance"

However, I was able to find a short clip from the film, here: https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/kutcher-...

Please let me know if you find a source of the full movie, thanks!

It doesn't really matter. This isn't a biography or a documentary, this is entertainment. Was THE SOCIAL NETWORK true? No, it was entertaining.

The best you can hope for any biopic is that it won't distort positions unrecognizably far from reality, and perhaps it will inspire someone.

I'm not sure why you draw a distinction between biographies, documentaries and entertainment.

The Social Network was not true. I'm pretty sure we would've been just as entertained by the truth.

The best we can hope for is that we learn something from the truth while simultaneously being entertained by it.

I'm not sure when we decided that we must sacrifice everything but the names, of those involved, at the altar of entertainment

Regarding Jobs, the transition from the kid avid to make a quick buck to the perfectionist product designer, then tech guru/trend setter would have been interesting. From the preview, it looks like they portray Jobs as the latter from the get go.

Edit: dsr_: It seems that most users here have failed to learn the meaning of up and downvotes.

I think you can make an even stronger argument in the case of The Social Network that what we got was a less entertaining story because of it. I think the story that was told was a much lazier one, forced to fit old prototypes and thus was simultaneously less entertaining and had less to teach. The story behind Facebook, and the people that participated in it, is probably pretty interesting, but instead we got the tired trope of "ostracized nerd channels social frustration to super ambition - only to find himself alone". The characters were flat and one sided, the lessons were obvious. The story has been told countless times already, it is boring, unrealistic, and doesn't leave much to learn from.

What's next? "Steve Jobs, Vampire Hunter"?

may be Blade Runner, "retiring" androids. ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com