The CEO was trying to prove a point and used drama to get it across. I doubt Steve would have taken it as seriously if the CEO did not do what he did.
In addition, I'm sure that experienced contributed to Steve's development and he's thankful for it.
I, personally, would have taken a calm statement of the facts far more seriously than screaming; dramatic means to an end or not. And if the guys screaming at me was doing it just to make a point, I'd find that far more offensive than if he was a short-fused rage-aholic.
How confident in the merit of your position can you possibly be, if you need to resort to pushing emotional buttons?
I suppose as the boss you need to know how to act and when. Some people will react in different ways and you need to be aware of that. Based on my reading I interpreted that Steve thought the CEO's tactic was useful.
Emotions have no bearing on correctness, but they do have tremendous bearing on actions. Mastery of the former begets knowledge, whilst mastery of the latter begets results.
The CEO has in effect told his managers that they should use threats as a normal management technique and that reasoned discourse is an inferior business tool. For a high-tech business this seems unlikely to be correct. I can't imagine this approach being routine at say Google.
All of those have associated economic costs which screaming does not. What exactly is the disadvantage of screaming?