Hacker News Reader

Comment by badman_ting | Hacker News Reader

I agree. I think there is a real resentment among people who work hard to master technical details, only to have guys in positions like Jobs's more or less float over that. It's like, you didn't put in the hard work to learn endianness like I did, so you don't know shit.

The kind of knowledge and savoir-faire that Jobs had is not concrete, ineffable. Engineers tend to hate that, they think it's just a bunch of shit.

View on HN

Jobs was extremely smart to brilliant. What he didn't do, and what he said he did, was design the Apple I. There was a front page article a few weks ago linking to a bunch of Jobs videos, and again and again he'd stand in a front of a bunch of people and claim to have designed the Apple I.

I guess none of us really know the score in that regard, but certainly everything in the rest of their careers backs up Steve's story.

Engineers hate lying, not soft skills.

Engineers hate lying, not soft skills.

Thank you for pointing out this very important distinction. I think it's important to realize that Jobs was human and not the most humane among us. It's easy to realize if you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

Development of the Apple Lisa computer began in the year of Brennan's birth, just as Apple Computer, the company her father founded, began to experience significant growth. Jobs initially denied paternity, and he and Apple claimed that the name was an acronym for "Local Integrated Software Architecture".[5] Steve Jobs swore in court documents that he could not be Lisa's father because he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."[2] Decades later, Jobs admitted to his biographer Walter Isaacson, "Obviously, it was named for my daughter."[

The guy swore under oath and penalty of perjury that he was incapable of fathering the daughter he in fact fathered and concocted an elaborate story to explain away why he named one of Apple's computers after this girl that he claimed was not his daughter.

So I agree with you; engineers tend to deal in reality. Many people are successful because they successfully sell non-reality to people when it suits their purpose. Engineers tend to have problems with such people.

I just want to say kudos to the above responses. I think they're right on the money. In fact, I think the main reason I got into engineering in the first place is that I couldn't stand people's bullshit. In engineering, it actually matters whether what you say is true or not, because if it isn't, the thing won't work.

Get over yourself.

There are plenty of fields where "it won't work" if you lie. Law? Surgery?

Let's leave aside for a second the enormous number of programmers who aren't actually engineers (with an engineering degree) who still use the Engineer title.

Although I agree that "There are plenty of fields where "it won't work" if you lie." But Law? Surgery? are not the examples you should choose, both had plenty of cases where lying did work.

I believe both fields have formalized codes of eithics, tho. you can be disbasrred or struck off the list of licesed practitioners for 'lying'. That being said, their is a continuum on considerations, even professionally. Physicians need to maintain a diplomatic bedside manner; counsel needs to advocate adversarially the strongest position, etc. In these examples, the notion of black and white is best not clung too strenuously. Perjury, negligence, and fruadulen billing, etc of course are at the othe end of the spectrum.

> There are plenty of fields where "it won't work" if you lie. Law?

The field of Law is based on interpretation and persuasive authority.

Sorry, I had to chuckle when I saw you include law as one of the fields where lying "won't work." For many parties, lying in court does "work" for them if they can get away with it. Recent case in point: the DEA using NSA intercepts to launch investigations, then lie in court about how these investigations originally started. [1]

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...

Litigation/trial law is but a small part of the Law profession.

Perjury is also a felony, despite the fact that your country's justice system doesn't seem to enforce it.

This ( http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html ) is part of what made me like computers:

>I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...

>> Engineers hate lying, not soft skills.

I think I ought to admit that as an engineer I probably shouldn't hate soft skills, but I do (I also do hate lying, but that's not a bad thing). I dislike the fact that it's hard for me to gain some of those soft skills, and the fact that they're often necessary for complete success. I'm willing to call that jealousy, but I think we should recognize that it's natural for that to creep in, and maybe that explains some of the comments towards Jobs.

Okay, sure, I was a bit blithe in that statement, aiming for a catchy, not all-inclusive statement. Good point.

Do you have a link to the page? I've never heard that Jobs claimed to have designed the Apple I. It's a strange claim for him to have made.

Sure, here [1]. First video, at 2:30. He keeps using "we" (I don't feel like transcribing the video). Now, if you parse the wording very, very carefully you could argue that Jobs never exactly says that 'he' designed it, but he keeps using 'we' - the computer was designed for them, 'we'worked on it for 6 months, etc. It's weasel words and phrases, and I have no doubt that every person in that room walked out thinking that Jobs co-designed the Apple I, and that Jobs thought up the idea. Whereas in reality Woz went to a homebrew meeting, came up with the idea, designed it, and then showed Jobs. Jobs came up with the idea of it being a kit, marketed it, and absolutely made Apple what it was. The third video, of Woz, explains that history.

And then how about this quote: "This whole vision of a personal computer just popped into my head. [In March 1975], I started to sketch out on paper what would later become known as the Apple I." [2]

[1] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jobs-ashton-kutcher-re...

[2] http://www.applegazette.com/steve-jobs/steve-jobs-quotes-the...

Your argument is ridiculous. One half of a two person team is certainly permitted to say "we". Sheesh.

What he clearly meant about the Apple I was envisioning the end-user version of the computer, not how the transistors were laid out. My goodness.

I don't think it is clear at all. Woz's description of their respective role is crystal clear, and Job's description is clear only if you already know Woz's description.

But, convince me, don't belittle me. What words did Jobs say in that video to convey that what he did was envision the end-user version of the computer (which I agree is what he did).

edit: I am not suggesting something unheard of, after all. Google 'jobs takes credit for others work' and relevant links fill the page. Here's the top one: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-would-annoy-jony-i...

It is easy to claim Jobs takes credit for others work but I also think its fair to say that for most people who cofound a company, whether they are technical or not, they will often use the word "we" when describing something they've worked on.

You just say we when you talk about your team or company to outsiders. It's pretty normal. You don't say our engineer bob spent months on it.

The engineering portions of output are much easier to quantify. The non-engineering portions are much more difficult to quantify but much, much more important.

I Googled it, and there were 2 or 3 results...the Ive quote, something from Woz and maybe one more. I'd be curious what the complete context is on the Ive quote.

I think a good deal of the mis-placement of responsibility has to do with some people's attachment to novel-ness vs. other's respect for piecing together something marketable.

I Googled it, and there were 2 or 3 results...the Ive quote, something from Woz and maybe one more. I'd be curious what the complete context is on the Ive quote.

I think a good deal of the mis-placement of responsibility has to do with some people's attachment to novel-ness vs. other's respect for piecing together something marketable. I appreciate invention but understand that it is useless without marketing. Not so the other way around.

There's a lot of Steve Jobs hero worship I hear of this sort. What did the poster do to deserve being called ridiculous? He laid out a very compelling case that there was serious ambiguity in Job's statements to the public.

Do you think it does any good to elevate Steve Jobs above what he actually did? Who does that ultimately benefit?

We have a whole channel full of entrepreneurs here who deserve to know the true story because they may also have co-founders who claim too much credit or they may have resentful co-founders. They all need to know that friction does not mean that their businesses will fail.

Founders are human. Like Steve Jobs.

There are appears to be a strong trend these days in certain circles to demonize Steve Jobs in some way or other. Simply mentioning his name either here or on reddit (and probably a few other places) is often enough to garner a large number of replies saying he wasn't a genius and was just a salesman / marketer, etc.

The fact is, he did have a proven track record of being able to distill various concepts and functions into products that people loved -- not just liked, but loved. When presented with a prototype or the beginnings of an idea, he knew what to keep, what to throw away, and what to change. He knew how to keep at it until it was truly great. So great that it could turn entire industries on their heads. So great that whole companies would spend years trying to imitate the results. He did this many times during his life, enough times so that it is pretty much impossible to say that it was merely accident; he clearly knew what he was doing.

The results are so striking and so clearly beyond that which other people working at the same time were able to produce that I think it's safe to say Steve Jobs was exhibiting a next-level talent, one of those talents that even people whom we normally think of as extremely talented find difficult to even comprehend, let alone replicate. Because of this I think it is truly fitting to use the word "genius" when describing what he could do, even if it was not the skills of an engineer. I know using that word will probably incur some of the replies I was just talking about, but that's how I see it.

When it comes down to it, Steve Jobs probably could have been a good or even great engineer if he had set his mind to it, but he had a much rarer talent around which he chose to build his career. I can't help but feel that a lot of the vitriol directed at him is because people either do not understand or on some level actively resent what made him different.

I agree with a lot of this, but Jobs made plenty of blunders as well. Computers without disk drives, keyboards without arrow keys, etc - all things that were put on the market with Jobs vehemently arguing that it was the only, and correct choice, .... and then Apple backpedaled.

Which is not intended to counter your "next-level" talent claim - I wholeheartedly agree. I guess statements like "he knew what to keep" give me pause because he did, clearly, make plenty of blunders. As Woz said [1] "Steve never created a great computer. In that period, he had failure after failure after failure. He had an incredible vision, but he didn't have the ability to execute on it. I would be surprised if the movie portrays the truth."

One can be (must be?) flawed and still a genius. Some people (not you) deny the flawed part, and that rankles me. [1]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jobs-ashton-kutcher-re...

edit: sorry, the floppy thing was NeXT, not Apple.

The mouse with one button, they finally gave in and have two now.

Um, am I the only one that feels that part of my job is to make my boss look good?

I would get a new job if I were you. Not saying that you should, if that sort of stuff is your thing, but I would.

Not sure how it will help. It will be just as true in the new job.

Not unless you create the new job!

When you are your own boss, making your boss look good is even more closely aligned with your personal interests.

Some people care about doing a good job and getting paid well for it, not the "glory". And if the guy taking the spotlight shows his appreciation, staying in the shadow can be just as rewarding.

Or back on topic: I think someone like Woz would be totally miserable being in the spotlight and under constant pressure the way Jobs was.

Do you mind providing any reasoning why the person should "get a new job"? I tend to agree that a significant part of being employed is "making your leader look good". This is generally accomplished by doing good work and complementing your team, leader included.

You are not.

You absolutely are. Otherwise, what's the point in hiring you?

Um. What question is it that you think you're answering?

Here's the way in which I presume your comment was interpreted:

You are not [supposed to make your boss look good].

Not that I would've interpreted it that way, however.

Yes, sorry. He actually meant: "You are not the only one who thinks that part of your job is making your boss look good."

Kinda seems obvious now.

That's fine, as long as it's part of your bosses job is to tell customers how smart his engineers are. Making people look good is a two way street.

In my view, the good boss deflects as much praise as possible onto his team, and absorbs as much blame as possible.

To be fair, most people who act like Steve Jobs are not Steve Jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com