Two Letters from Steve Jobs
davidgelphman.wordpress.com
davidgelphman.wordpress.com
Yeah, it was nice of him to let this guy take the device to his friend, but let's not make him a saint or martyr or what not. Don't forget the poor bastards in China living on the edge of humanity to make the said devices..
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]
ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264
and to keep it this way:
More than 98% of the ERC’s grants are awarded to scientists in the old EU-15, with mere crumbs thrown to newer member countries.
http://www.nature.com/news/a-chance-to-drive-forward-europe-...
Poland can at least have a little leverage, given its size -- but was hated for it (ie. agricultural pact negotiations)
Steve Jobs was an arsehole. But the brevity of that message does not make it any less special to the one receiving it.
The poor bastards in China can choose to do something else. They are grown adults who can make their own life decisions. It's literally a thousand times safer than the fishermen and loggers here in the west.
Thats not really true, China is not the US. Most of these workers have no other choice as to nearly work themselves to death to be able to support their families outside of the big cities. Its not really Apples problem though, as some other company would take their spot if they were not doing it, but that doesnt make it a good thing.
The situation in China isn't good, but it is what it is, and it's not Apples fault. And it most certainly isn't Jobs fault. Just about everything you consume is made in factories in China, but I only see this when Apple is in the conversation. It's simply illogical.
http://emailsfromstevejobs.com
At the time it felt like an interesting meme but over time I began to really feel the philosophy of the man and Apple not having previously been a fan of Apple.
To me the interpretation was that Steve always was product focused and wanted to put out the best user experience possible. I began to appreciate this customer focused approach. So I can see why he said 'OK'.
Why? Because it normalizes the chain-of-command, rules-are-rules way that we typically see. It makes it seem OK that someone wouldn't grant this request.
In fact, he probably shouldn't even have to ask.
It's not an employee's 'opinion' based on an emotional decision on whether they can share something with an individual that has cost millions (billions?) to produce.
Basically, this story boils down to: "Billionaire CEO lets employee talk about work with a friend." Not really some super amazing thing, unless you are just honored and in awe that Steve Jobs momentarily knew who you were.
I was touched by what the OP did more than what Steve did. What Steve did was alright, any decent person would have done the same.
I know why you said it of course, that kind of wealth has a stigma these days. And what could be more obnoxious than a billionaire CEO!
There's no evidence Jobs coveted being a billionaire, he didn't make an effort to show off his extreme wealth, and he didn't go out of his way to brag about it.
So we can't call someone a billionaire once they have a billion dollars, but instead we have to wait until they covet billionaire status and make an effort to show off extreme wealth?
I really don't see what your point is, beyond "Hey! Unfair to billionaire to state their approximate wealth level!"
I think the answer was in how you held it. I held it very lightly with the tips of my fingers and so could throw it around with real speed and accuracy. I thought it's shape made it far more manoeuvrable. Because it had a chord I never had any problems with orientation either. I liked it's solidity too.
For a long time I assumed that the criticisms came from people who had either never used it (or had used it very briefly at a reseller's). I still believe this to a certain degree. There was a lot of irrational and ill-informed Apple bashing at the time and, to me, this was just one of the anti-Apple style-over-substance mantras.
I also dislike the current cordless one too - people I work with leave the mouse in all sorts of strange places and almost always I seem to start driving it upside down. And the lack of proper scroll wheel is infuriating when trying to scroll through a CT scan or MRI - using the fantastic DICOM/image viewer Osirix and trying to scroll 1 image either way is quite tricky.
Steve Jobs explained to me that it was ergonomically superior to mice on which you rest your entire hand. The ‘Apple USB mouse’ was meant to be used without putting your hand down at all. That way, you wouldn't put pressure on your wrist and you wouldn't hold your mouse in the same position for too long.
At the time, the iMac had been out for 5 months (the first Mac that came with the Apple USB mouse). So SJ had received plenty of responses about it already, and no doubt he knew what the press had written about it. To me, he said “They'll get used to it, this is a better mouse.” As we talked, I started to believe it, and by the end of our conversation, I was convinced that yes, this is revolutionary and necessary. (I was 18 years old at the time, I had recently moved to the US, and MacWorld Expo was the biggest event I had ever been.) A year later, Apple replaced the model with the more conventional ‘Apple Pro mouse’.
""Except he was already allowed to carry it. He was just not allowed to show it to anyone."
Assuming that's the case then he could have weighed the possible downside (almost nil) to showing the device to someone on their deathbed (with nobody else in the room of course) vs. the risk in asking Steve for permission and the potential repercussions of doing that. [1] Almost daring him to either not respond or to say "no" instead of "ok". I suspect there is more here than meets the eye. [2]
[1] Certainly a risk greater than showing the device to someone on their death bed.
[2] Shows the level of brainwashing more or less like asking the Priest, Minister or Rabbi for a pass on a ritual that has been drilled into your head. After all only you yourself know you have committed the transgression.
I would be so pleased if, in my last moments, a friend gives me a glimpse of what's next. Even better if I am lucid enough to appreciate it. Cherry on top that a friend of MINE is involved in it and proud of it.
This is a great story.
Just think, instead of being your average tech consumer they are the type of people that built these devices and thus he felt she may have been glad to have a look at where things were before she left.
Its a nice gesture, "Look at this thing that no one even knows about yet".I thought it was a bit sweet.
"Every minute I spend writing this email is another minute you will spend waiting for the response, and a minute less you will have with your friend."
Edit: typos
I concluded that it was not arrogance or a lack of empathy but rather that their time had gotten constrained. If they wanted to preserve themselves for other things than email, they HAD to email like this.
If I had received this reply, I would have been thrilled too. Probably more thrilled to receive some other comment, but I wouldn't have been miffed by the terseness.
Of course, as with everyone else's opinions... this is 100% speculation.
I have the same like-or-hate reaction, though for a different reason: This sort of thing encourages the irrational hero worship that Jobs fostered while he was alive and that's only grown in some circles after his death. Yes, this story shows that he did something good for someone. Once. And I'm sure there are other similar anecdotes. But the takeaway here will not be "this is something that Steve Jobs did that was nice," it will be "OH WOW STEVE JOBS WAS A SAINT."
And that, sir, is what we call the fundamental attribution error. But I feel it applies more to everyone than just Jobs. If you showcase a positive action, it'll be assumed as part of a personality. And I seriously doubt anyone would be spreading bad things about Steve Jobs, because he actually was very intelligent and all that lot. The only person I'm aware who was appreciated during life and hated afterwards is Edison, and that's only 100 years after the fact.
But... what... show iPad to dying friend?
It has always been this way. Humans like physical objects. Maybe your particular love is art. My Grandmother's was salt and pepper shakers. Some people love bikes.
Things with motion or reactions tend to grab more attention. Computers were amazing in this regard. The iPad and other touch tablets really blow the doors off. Sit down and talk to a car or motorcycle guy/girl about the time they got it working when no one thought they could....
I'm actually quite happy with it. It drives those people to build better things or use them in ways others haven't thought of. It drives us.
// these days, Steve Jobs's response is probably the best I could do, anything added would just sound wrong
To be able to experience a new invention so far before everyone else on that planet is a special experience. At least, I'd see it that way were I in her friend's shoes.
Jobs didn't need to respond if he thought it was a waste of time and/or didn't care. He simply needed to give approval - not much else needed to be said.